Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dover Harbour Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN OFFICE STAFF.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the staff of the Foreign Office numbered approximately 190 in 1914 and 780 in 1925, and that the aggregate salaries in those respective years amounted approximately to £61,000 and £260,000, he will explain the reasons for the quadrupling of the staff; and whether he is taking steps to reduce it substantially?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have to apologise for the length of this answer. The additions to the staff of the Foreign Office (apart from the Passport Office, to which I will refer later) have been necessitated by the large increase in the volume of work due to the innumerable international questions arising out of the after-results of the War. The number of countries in which His Majesty is represented and which have representatives in London has increased from 31 in 1914 to 52 in 1926. The number of papers dealt with in the Foreign Office (apart from the Passport Office) is considerably more than double the number in 1913, and in order to deal adequately with the increased volume of work it has been necessary to introduce a new and more effective system of registering papers,
which necessitates a larger registry staff, as well as a larger staff to deal with telegrams. As regards the Passport Office, the increase in staff is due to the enormous increase in the issue of passports under present conditions. The number of passports issued in 1913 was 12,700; the corresponding number in 1925 (including renewals, endorsements, etc., which were not necessary in 1913) was 889,981. The staff of the Passport Office in 1913 consisted of two persons; it is now, when at its maximum in the busy season, 293. I should, however, add that the fees taken in 1924–25 amounted to £106,750, which more than covered the cost of staff and other expenses of the Passport Office. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, no opportunity is lost of effecting a reduction of staff and expenditure, but it is essential to bear in mind that the strength of the Foreign Office staff must always be proportionate to the amount of work to be performed, and that this depends on factors entirely beyond the control of the British Government or Parliament. The problems raised by our foreign relations depend on what goes on and what is done in the rest of the world. The Foreign Office Estimates and staff have already been most carefully examined by the Treasury, and a further examination is being made.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is this increase to be of a permanent nature; and considering that there are 889,000 passports, will the right hon. Gentleman get into communication with some other countries and see whether this vast amount of work cannot be done away with?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government are not prepared to do away with the passport system, and we cannot therefore ask others to do it.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If these passports are covering the cost of the administration of the Passport Office, why have the expenses of the Foreign Office so vastly increased?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: For the reason I have given in the earlier portion of my answer. It was a very long answer and I read it as rapidly as possible, but I think the hon. Member will see there is a good reason.

Mr. HARRIS: Could not labour be saved by simplifying the procedure of the issue of passports, which is very complicated and used to be very much simpler?

Mr. SPEAKER: We can deal with that at another time.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (SALARIES).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs whether, seeing that the staff of the Diplomatic Service numbered approximately 160 in 1914 and 270 in 1925 and that their aggregate salaries in those years amounted to approximately £455,000 and £1,000,000, respectively, he will explain why the salary total has more than doubled while the number of staff has less than doubled; and whether he is taking steps to reduce the figures substantially?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot reconcile the amount given by the hon. Member as the cost of salaries in 1914 with any figures in my possession. The correct figure for 1914 is £217,630. The figure which the hon. Member quotes as the cost in 1925 is approximately that for the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Services taken together. The correct figure for the Diplomatic Service is £440,276. The relation of aggregate salaries to the number of staff is, however, approximately correctly stated in the hon. Member's question. The increase in cost arises from two main causes. (1) As the result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Services of 1914 and of pledges given in Parliament, the "property qualification" for the Diplomatic Service was abolished and, as a corollary, emoluments are now paid which are designed to enable persons without private means to enter the service and to live in a manner compatible with their representative position, and (2) in assessing these emoluments, it is necsesary to take into account the fact that the cost of living in practically all parts of the world is far above the pre-War level.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT.

Mr. LOOKER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Colony of Hong
Kong is only 90 miles from Canton, and that many questions necessarily arise affecting the interests of Hong Kong which can only be dealt with by the Canton authorities, he will sanction direct communication taking place between the Government of Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities in Canton?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I do not consider that special arrangements of this nature are either necessary or desirable at the present time. If and when negotiations for the termination of the boycott are resumed, the Governor will no doubt suggest to me in what manner they can best be facilitated.

TARIFF CONFERENCE.

Mr. FORREST: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the interests of trade, which benefits by the promotion of good relations between China and this country, he will impress upon the British delegates to the Tariff Conference at Peking the need for expediting their decision on the interim tariff proposals?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The British Delegation is doing its utmost to arrive at a settlement of all outstanding questions at the Tariff Conference, but the points at issue are so complex and the political situation in Peking so obscure that an early decision on the interim tariff rates is hardly to be expected. I presume that the hon. Member realises that there are 13 Powers represented at the Conference, including China, and that decisions do not rest in the hands of the British Delegation alone.

RAILWAY LOANS (GERMAN ISSUES).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the interest and principal of the Chinese railway loans, German section, of the issues, is paid by the Chinese Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the German issues of the three Chinese railway loans which were partly issued in Germany, namely, the Tientsin-Pukow Railway Loans of 1908 and 1910 and the Hukuang Railways Loan of 1911 are all in default.

SALT REVENUE (CHIEF INSPECTOR).

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the present Chief Inspector of the Salt Revenue in China is retiring; and will he assure the House that His Majesty's Government will support the nomination of a British subject for this position so as to maintain the prestige of Great Britain?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that no final decision has yet been come to with regard to the retirement of the Chief Inspector of the Salt Revenues. The second part of the question does not therefore at present arise.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intrigues going on to out the British and replace him, not by the Chinese, but other foreigners?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of what is taking place.

UNITED STATES (DETENTION OF BRITISH IMMIGRANTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have been refused permission to land in the United States since 1st January, 1921, on the grounds of moral turpitude; and in how many of those cases was assistance given or attempted by His Majesty's Government or by His Majesty's representatives in America?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information which would enable me to reply to the first part of the question. With the exception of the case which has formed the subject of recent questions in this House, no request for assistance has been received by my Department since the date referred to, but it is part of the duty of the British Consular officers in foreign countries to afford British subjects who are in any difficulty such assistance as they properly can.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the same degree of assistance will be granted to persons, notwithstanding what their social standing is, in all cases?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. There is no shadow of ground for the suggestion that any class distinctions are made in a matter of this kind.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what assistance was given in the case to which he refers?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say that. I received a communication, and I replied—I only know my own minutes; I cannot state the actual terms of the telegram—that the Consul-General would give whatever assistance was possible and proper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge of a British subject named Celina Chippendale who has been detained for several weeks at the immigration headquarters at Boston, and was deported on the 21st February in the steamship "Aurania" on the grounds of moral turpitude; whether his assistance or the assistance of His Majesty's representatives in the United States was sought by this woman or her friends; and whether any assistance was given, offered or attempted?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The case was brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government by the United States Gov eminent because they desired to deport Celina Chippendale, who was believed to be a British subject, to this country on the ground of "moral turpitude." I have received no communication from Mrs. Chippendale nor on her behalf, and so far as I am aware, no request for assistance was received by the British authorities in the United States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider instructing our Consul-General in America to watch these cases, especially those of poor people who will not know how to communicate with him?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the Consul-General can know all about these cases unless application is made to him.

Captain FAIRFAX: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, quite apart from Ellis Island detention of immigrants, English business men, with non-immigrant passports and credentials in good order, have been detained at El Paso, on the Mexican frontier, and subjected to expense and hardship; and if he will make diplomatic representations to the United States Government on this subject?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No such case has been brought to my notice. But if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have the details of any specific case I will make inquiries.

TURKEY (BRITISH EMBASSY).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of the Turkish Republic has made any representations to the British Government regarding the transference of the British Embassy from Constantinople to Angora; what was the nature of these representations; and whether the absence of suitable accommodation for the Embassy in Angora is the only reason for retaining the Embassy in Constantinople?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On 19th March, 1925, the Turkish Government addressed identic notes on this subject to the British, French and Italian representatives at Constantinople. After thanking the Allied Powers for their decision to raise the rank of their representatives in Turkey to that of Ambassador, they stated that they considered that these representatives should reside at Angora and not at Constantinople. They explained that a law would shortly be submitted to the Grand National Assembly authorising the Government to offer friendly foreign Powers land on which to construct suitable embassies or legations, and expressed the hope that the missions concerned would be transferred to Angora as soon as possible. In answer to the third part of the question, I would say that the lack of an embassy building suitable for the Ambassador and his staff is a good reason but not the only reason.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What purpose is served by maintaining our Embassy at Constantinople, seeing that all relations with the Government have to take place at Angora?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that question is more fitted for debate than for this period of the day, but I do not accept the premises of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this the only case in which we maintain an Embassy not at the capital of the State?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I think so.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Embassy at Constantinople is the property of Great Britain; at what figure it is valued; and whether any suggestions have been made for its disposal in the event of the transference of the Embassy elsewhere?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last in the negative. I have no information as to the present value of the property.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtain the information? Can he also say whether the Summer Embassy at Therapia is the property of the British Government?

ITALY (TREATMENT OF BRITISH TRAVELLER).

Mr. GERALD HURST: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from the British Consul at Genoa, or from any other source, as to the treatment of Mr. R. R. Stokes, M.C., a British traveller in Italy, by Fascisti railway officials in a guardroom at Genoa, upon Mr. Stokes objecting to pay luggage charges twice over; what action he has taken in this matter; and whether an apology and compensation have been required from the officials concerned?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any report from the British Consul at Genoa on the treatment accorded to Mr. R. R. Stokes on his arrival by the Rome express last week by Fascist officials on the railway, and by the guard at the police station; if such report shows any provocation on the part of Mr. Stokes which led to the personal assaults to which he was subjected; and, if not, will he make suitable representations to the Italian Government on the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No report has yet been received from His Majesty's Consul-General at Genoa, but Mr. Stokes has given me his account of the incident.
I aim immediately calling for a full report, and the most careful consideration will be given to the matter.

OPIUM CONVENTION.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the Powers have ratified the Opium Convention, which was signed at Geneva in February, 1925?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no foreign Power has yet ratified either the Opium Agreement or the Dangerous Drugs Convention, signed at Geneva on 11th February and 19th February, 1925, respectively. The British ratifications of the Agreement and Convention were deposited with the League of Nations on the 17th ultimo.

RUSSIA (TRADE CONDITIONS).

Sir F. HALL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reports have been made to him recently by the British representative in Russia as to trading and other conditions in Russia so far as they affect the interests of this country; and, if so, whether these reports can be made available for the information of Members?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Reports are regularly made to me by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Moscow on all subjects in which British interests are involved. As regards the second part of the question, information which may be of value to British traders is either published in the "Board of Trade Journal" or circulated confidentially by the Department of Overseas Trade to those likely to be interested.

Sir F. HALL: Has the Charge d'Affaires referred to the report of Mr. Zinovieff in opening the Communist International Committee a short time ago, when statements were made which were detrimental to the interests of this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the 'best I can do for British trade is to
circulate, or cause to be circulated, in the way described such information as is valuable. I do not think I can serve the best interests of British trade by saying exactly what information our representative at Moscow has given.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the propaganda that is being initiated in Russia, with the approval of the Soviet Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NAVIGATIONAL CHARTS DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is considered that the Navigational Charts Department will have overtaken the arrears which accumulated during the late War; and whether the staff can be reduced by 60 per cent. to the number employed in 1914?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): It is estimated that it would take six years for these arrears to be cleared off by the present drawing staff if no other work were attempted. This, however, is clearly impracticable so long as Admiralty Charts are to continue to be produced and kept up to date for the use of the Royal Navy and for sale to the Mercantile Marine. No reduction of the present staff is therefore possible.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take powers to amend the present provision in the Superannuation Acts whereby only those dockyard men who have seven years' calculable service in His Majesty's dockyards are eligible for a gratuity; and whether he can reduce the qualifying period, seeing that many hired men who fall short of this period will be discharged owing to the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke yards?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Superannuation Acts apply to the Civil Service as a whole, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any amendment in the direction suggested.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Owing to the special circumstances of the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke, does not the hon. Gentleman think that these men should be treated differently, and that as many of them are anxious to get other jobs and to give way to other men, it is in the interests of the Admiralty to relax the Regulations?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Admiralty cannot act alone in the matter.

PERSONNEL.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty further to reduce the personnel of the Royal Navy; and, if so, under what conditions they will be discharged?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The numbers for the coming year will be the same as those voted for 1925–26.

DIVING APPARATUS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as the tests made with the German diving apparatus in the efforts to locate the M1 disclosed the superiority of this apparatus as compared with that in use by the Admiralty, the Admiralty has now provided itself with an improved apparatus; and at what depth it can be used?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is insufficient knowledge at the present time of the capabilities of the apparatus either to justify the Admiralty in purchasing a set, or to say definitely that it is of no practical value. It is intended that an Admiralty representative shall attend the further trials referred to in my reply of 9th December last to my noble Friend the Member for Southampton (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 492/3).

TANKER FLEET.

Sir F. WISE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the age of the 64 ships in the Government tanker fleet; and how many new ships are being built?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate figures as regards the ages in the OFFICIAL REPORT. No new tankers are being built.

Following are the figures promised:

The ages of the 64 ships in the Government tanker fleet are as follows:


Years.


No.


25
…
…
1


20
…
…
1


19
…
…
1


17
…
…
1


14
…
…
1


11
…
…
2


9
…
…
7


8
…
…
22


7
…
…
12


6
…
…
7


5
…
…
7


4
…
…
1


3
…
…
1


Total
…
…
64

HIS MAJESTY'S MONITOR "GLATTON."

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the desire of relatives of the men lost in the explosion of His Majesty's monitor "Glatton," off Dover, on the 15th September, 1918, and recently salved, for a memorial service to be held in memory of the men who perished: and will he accede to such desire?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that a memorial service for these men was held at the time of the loss of the "Glatton." I understand that it is not possible to explore the hull in its present position, and it may be a fortnight before this is done. If any remains are discovered arrangements will be made for them to be re-interred.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Deputy Chief of Naval Instruction at the Admiralty stated that there were no living men on this boat when she went down?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of that. He may have been wrong. If any remains are found, I will make the necessary arrangements.

SEAMEN AND ENGINEERING BRANCH (PROMOTION).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ratings of the seaman branch were promoted to mate; how many ratings of the engineering branch were promoted to mate E during 1925; and whether any
extension of promotions to these ranks is contemplated in order to provide greater facilities for promotion of naval ratings to commissioned rank?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Five ratings of the seaman branch and five ratings of the engineering branch were promoted to mate or mate (E) during 1926. At present, all qualified candidates for mate who are considered to be suitable for promotion are being taken, but should a greater number of suitable candidates come forward, it will probably be found possible to increase the number of promotions somewhat. The number at present promoted to mate (E) is amply sufficient to meet requirements, and no increase is anticipated. I do not think, if account is taken of the number of promotions to warrant rank, which amounted to 49 during 1925, that the amount of promotion accorded to engineering ratings can be said to be unsatisfactory.

OFFICERS INVALIDED.

Sir B. FALLE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval officers were invalided during the year 1925; how many there were whose in validing disability was considered to be attributable to service; and how many whose invaliding disability was not considered to be attributable to service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would repeat his question next Wednesday, when I hope that the figures will be available.

ARTIFICER APPRENTICES.

Sir B. FALLE: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that artificer apprentices now leaving H.M.S. "Fisgard" are being in formed that instead of being rated engine-room artificers, fourth class, with the status of chief petty officer on the completion of their seagoing training as engine-room artificers, fifth class, they will be rated engine-room artificers, fourth class, with the status of petty officer; and, seeing that this is a breach of the pledges given and of Paragraph 3, Clause 4, of A.F.O. 2859/1925, will he look into the question?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I have no reason to think that the Fleet Order is being misinterpreted. Artificer apprentices who
were serving as such on the 4th October last are, of course, not affected by the new rule regarding status. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars, steps will be taken, if necessary, to remove any misapprehension on the subject.

His MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a large number of witnesses are prepared to give evidence in connection with the disaster to His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire"; and whether he will arrange for an inquiry at which the evidence of these and others can be taken?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No such witnesses have expressed to the Admiralty any desire to give evidence on this matter, and I am not aware of the existence of fresh information which would add to the knowledge already obtained on material particulars, or justify the appointment of a body to inquire into an event which occurred so long ago.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 200 witnesses, either on sea or land, desire and are prepared to come forward and give first-hand evidence at any inquiry which he is prepared to hold? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to hold an inquiry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no information whatever of the 200 gentlemen referred to—

Viscountess ASTOR: What about women?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: —or women. I do not quite understand at what kind of inquiry they wish to give evidence. It would be impossible for me, unless someone brings primâ facie evidence, to reopen the case.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the purpose of the inquiry is to establish what really took place at the time of this disaster, and how it came about?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have had an inquiry into that, and as far as we have been able to collect evidence we are satisfied as to the cause of the disaster. Unless there is some primâ facie evidence
that it was caused by something else, I do not think that a further inquiry is desirable.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to receive this fresh evidence that is publicly pledged to be presented? Is he not prepared to have that inquiry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by witnesses "publicly pledged." If they want to give evidence, why do not they tell me so?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have such an inquiry, so that these witnesses may be able to give, for the benefit of the public, information which is so important concerning the cause of the disaster?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All my answers have been to the effect that I must have some prima facie evidence that these witnesses have something new to state. Everybody would be very glad to know the truth, but we cannot go to the expense of a long inquiry, a fishing inquiry, to satisfy those who wish to bring a charge against someone else.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the information that has been placed before the Admiralty has been published, and is in the possession of the Admiralty?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There has been some misunderstanding. The Report of the Inquiry has not been published, but all the material evidence that was taken, and the information derived from it, has been given to the public.

Mr. MACLEAN: Cannot the minutes of the Court of Inquiry be placed where they can be seen?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already given reasons—which were stated five years ago by Dr. Macnamara—why it is very undesirable to break the precedent, and publish the evidence.

ENGINEER OFFICERS.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there is still considerable uneasiness in the engineering profession,
both naval and civil, as regards the intentions and effect of the recent Fleet Order affecting naval officers (E); if he has been advised that this order will make recruiting for the naval engineer officer branch more difficult; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter in order to alleviate these fears?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Whatever uneasiness has been felt in the engineering profession as to the recent Fleet Order has, in my opinion, been due to a misapprehension of its effects. When the actual position is understood, I find it difficult to believe that it will have a prejudicial effect on recruiting, and I do not at present contemplate taking any action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF WORK SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, approximately, are working on special work or schemes for the relief of unemployment financed partly or wholly by the Treasury?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): According to returns received, the number of men directly employed on 30th January, 1926, on schemes of relief work undertaken with Government assistance is provisionally calculated as 104,953. This figure takes no account of the employment provided indirectly, e.g., in the preparation and transport of materials.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are any women employed? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to men only?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will find out whether the answer includes women or not.

Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they are employed continuously?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "continuously"? These men have been taken on at various periods.

Mr. PALIN: Is this number a decrease as compared with last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I must ask for notice of any question dealing with comparative figures.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this figure the number of places that have been filled rather than the number of people who have been given employment?

DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the reason given for the withdrawal of allowance for children of unemployed men in Leven, in Fife, was that the condition of maintenance, wholly or mainly, by the parents was not satisfied in the case of children earning 5s. per week, and that because children received meals from the education authority to the value of 5s. per week the Ministry held they were earning 5s. per week; does he still claim that these children were earning anything; and, having promised to consider this case further, will he now give orders for payment of the children's allowances in all cases where the same has been withheld?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I promised in reply to the hon. Member on 17th February, I have considered this case further. The position is that the local education authority is issuing vouchers weekly to the value of £1 in respect of four children. In view of this fact, the local committee did not recommend the grant of dependants' benefit for these children, and I do not see my way to disagree with their view. I may add that dependants' benefit is being paid in respect of three other children of the applicant.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason given for withholding the benefit was that the earning of 5s. a week laid them open to a discontinuance of benefit; and he has not answered my question, which is, whether the earning of 5s. a week in the way of food is regarded by the Ministry as if 5s. a week is earned by the child?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If there is from any source other than the claimant 5s. a week available for a child,, the usual practice is to regard the child as not being wholly or mainly maintained by the parent, therefore the allowance is withheld.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the education authority of Fifeshire, representing all political parties, believe that the Ministry of Labour are nothing more or less than brutes in withholding this?

CASUAL WORK.

Colonel DAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state, for the guidance of unemployed persons who are offered casual work, the hours of labour, or the amount of wages received in any one week, that will disqualify them for benefit for the week during which casual labour was performed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Benefit is not payable for any day on which casual work is done. Other days of unemployment are not affected provided that continuity of unemployment is not broken; the rule as to this is given in Section 5(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923. I should point out further that a claimant who refuses or avoids casual work of a suitable nature thereby runs the risk of disqualifying himself for benefit, on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man performing the work of an auxiliary postman and receiving less in wages for several hours per day than he would unemployment pay, is deprived of unemployment pay if he refuses to work for less than the amount paid for unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. If he has supplementary work, if in work, in the evening which, under normal circumstances, he would do in addition to his ordinary work, then there is no disqualification. If, on the other hand, he has a job during the day, that would disqualify him so far as that day is concerned.

Mr. WILLIAMS: An auxiliary postman working two or three hours a day during the whole of the six clays receives less than unemployment pay, and if he refuses to do that work he cannot get his unemployment pay.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of casual work is exceedingly complicated, but if the hon. Member will put the case to me I will go into it with him.

Colonel DAY: As this is an extreme hardship on people in casual employment, will the right hon. Gentleman make these conditions quite clear?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. POTTS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of unemployed persons the Government require to enable the Unemployment Grants Committee to make grants to local authorities for schemes of work expressly undertaken for relief of unemployment; whether the calculation basis is one of unemployed in relation to population; if so, what percentage relation is applied in arriving at a decision; and whether the Unemployment Grants Committee have a universal system of treatment to all local authorities having regard to population and unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Unemployment Grants Committee are authorised to consider applications from areas where unemployment is exceptional. In judging the matter comparison is made between the position of unemployment in the area and that in the country as a whole and the industrial prospects. All applications to be considered under the terms of the Unemployment Grants Committee Circular of the 15th December are subjected to the same review.

Mr. POTTS: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered my question. I want to know whether the basis on which the calculation is made for acceptance or rejection of the case is the number of unemployed in relation to population?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no fixed figure or percentage which is there as a law of the Medes and Persians. They have to consider the circumstances as a whole, and that is what has happened in the past and is in prospect for the future. That is the reason why I cannot give the hon. Member a rigid reply.

Mr. POTTS: Does the Minister and the Department treat all the country in all areas equally in coming to a decision?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the fact that the latest instructions of the Ministry have
made it more difficult for anyone, irrespective of population, to obtain unemployment grants?

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, GLASGOW.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if a site has been obtained for the rehousing of the Salkeld Street Exchange, Glasgow; and whether building operations in connection there with are anticipated at an early date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A site has been selected, and plans of the proposed building are under consideration. In the absence of any unforeseen difficulty, it is hoped to start building during the summer.

LONDON NEWSPAPER TRADE (CASUAL WORKERS).

Mr. NAYLOR: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that officers of his Department are visiting employers in the London newspaper trade in order to obtain the private addresses of casual workers; and if he will state for what purpose the addresses are required and why they should be collected in this way?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The inquiries to which the hon. Member refers are part of a check now being made on certain claims to benefit, on account of one or two cases recently discovered of men claiming benefit while working as printing machine attendants on night work.

MAINTENANCE CASE, SOUTH WALES.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the course of a maintenance case in South Wales it transpired that the defendant, a coal trimmer, was earning £4 9s. a week and at the same time drawing unemployment benefit, and that the court inspector explained that the man was only working three days a week and was therefore entitled to draw benefit; and will he take steps to amend the law to prevent the occurrence of cases of this kind?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have seen a Press report to the effect mentioned, but I am not aware of the exact circumstances of he case.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly, if it is desirable.

Sir F. HALL: I think it is desirable.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if any character or reference is asked from any prospective employed of a domestic servant before a girl is sent by the employment exchange; if any inquiry is made into the conditions of home life before any girl is asked to undertake domestic service; and, if so, will he state the nature of same?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not the practice to require formal references from employers in connection with the notification of vacancies in domestic service. Employment exchanges are instructed to satisfy themselves as far as practicable that a vacancy is genuine. In the case of young girls under the age of 18, the assistance of the Juvenile Advisory Committees is sought and in addition to other precautions her parent or guardian is consulted before she is submitted for the vacancy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether, in view of certain disclosures in the Law Courts, he will take steps to see that girls who are sent into domestic service are sent to homes which are in every way suitable for them, and ascertain this before they are sent?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have given the hon. Member an answer. If he will mention any case which necessitates further steps being taken, I will look into it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that careful inquiry is made into the character of a girl, why should the law of equality not operate and the same inquiry be made into the character of the employer?

BENEFIT PAYMENTS (STATISTICS).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour how much money has been paid in unemployment benefit since the scheme was introduced; the average weekly amount thus spent per person; and the number of people now in receipt of this form of relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total sum paid in unemployment benefit since
benefit first became payable in January, 1913, is approximately £239,830,000. The necessary data are not available for expressing this sum as an average weekly amount per person, over the whole period. The average amount paid to persons in receipt of benefit during the week ended 20th February, 1926, was 18s. 7d., and the number of persons to whom benefit was paid during that week was approximately 855,400.

Mr. RILEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount contributed respectively by employers, workmen and the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question on the Paper.

INSURED POPULATION (STATISTICS).

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the approximate increase in the insured population since this period last year; and what is the approximate decrease in unemployment, after making allowance for the probable effects of any change in legislation or administration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The increase in the numbers of insured workpeople in Great Britain between February, 1925, and February, 1926, is provisionally estimated at about 150,000. The total number of persons recorded as unemployed on 22nd February, 1926, was approximately 100,000 less than the corresponding figure at 23rd February, 1925, after making the allowance referred to in the last part of the question.

Mr. ALLEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to publish figures of that kind at certain periods, so as to avoid misunderstanding?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I promised to issue a memorandum which explains the matter.

Mr. T. SHAW: When the right hon. Gentleman issues this memorandum, will he make a definite statement as to the annual growth in the number of people working?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, I will endeavour to do that, too—the number of insured persons.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly how many people who are out of work were not registered at Employment Exchanges?

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. GIBBINS: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused benefit in Liverpool during the last three months; and the reasons why they have been refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am unable to state the number of applications for standard benefit which were disallowed, but during the period 17th November, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit recommended for disallowance by the Liverpool Employment Committee was 5,555. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the reasons for such disallowances.

Mr. LANSBURY: Cannot we know the reason why standard benefit should not be granted?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Because the figures are not there to be given to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LANSBURY: How is it possible to give the number of applicants for extended benefit that are refused, and not possible to give the number of standard benefit applicants who are refused? It is much more important to know about those who are entitled to benefit rather than the others.

Colonel DAY: Is that a decrease or an increase on the week?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not say without notice. I hesitate to speak of figures from memory.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why we cannot have the figures that I have mentioned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is all a question of the amount of extra labour involved in proportion to the value of the information gained.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not much more important that those people who are entitled to benefit should know the reason why they are refused it, and the number that are refused rather than those who are applying for extended benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would not like to say off-hand, but I will consider the matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

Mr. MARCH: The information asked for is much more important.

Following is the statement referred to:

Disallowances by the Liverpool Employment Committee of applications for extended benefit in the period 17th November, 1925, to 8th February, 1926:


Reasons for disallowance.
Number of cases disallowed.


Not normally insurable
742


Insurable employment not likely to be available
45


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment
2,832


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment
1,047


Single persons living with relatives
743


Married women looking for support from, their husbands
33


Short-timers earning sufficient for maintenance
77


Aliens
9


Postponed for a definite period
27


Total
5,555

Mr. GIBBINS: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused unemployment benefit in Liverpool since the first week in October on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to grant it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the period 13th October, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, 1,448 applications for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by the Liverpool Employment Committee on the ground that it would not be in public interest to grant them. I am unable to state the number of separate individuals included in this number.

Mr. T. SHAW: Is there any record of the number of those for whom work was found?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give the number of those for whom work was found, except to say that the proportion who found work in the Exchanges
has been steadily rising during the past 15 months.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the Minister state how many of those people who were refused extended benefit were thought to be entitled to extended benefit when in reality they had stamps sufficient to guarantee them standard benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not say off-hand.

Mr. MACLEAN: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Andrew Cunningham, 32, Logie Street, Govan (Govan Exchange /317, Class L26), 23 years of age, who is the only support of a widowed mother, was offered a situation at 10s. per week, which he refused; that he was refused benefit on 28th January on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking employment; that, after two letters had been written to the manager of the Govan Exchange, his case was reconsidered on 22nd February by the committee and again refused, without Cunningham being present to put forward his case; and whether, in view of the domestic circumstances and the low wage offered, he will have this case reviewed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

MEDICAL TESTS (GLASGOW).

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the various Exchanges in Glasgow at which the Industrial Research Fatigue Board have been given permission to carry out tests?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Employment Exchanges at which these tests have been carried out are: Glasgow, South Side; Glasgow, Central; Bridgeton; Govan, and Springburn.

Mr. T. SHAW: Will the Minister pay special attention to the fact that a very careful explanation is given to all the persons when the examination takes place, so as to give them some indication of the importance of this examination?

Mr. MACLEAN: Instead of seeing that these people have careful examination, will the Minister not get this thing stopped altogether?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On the contrary, as is well known by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who is chairman of the organisation, these tests are extraordinarily valuable.

Mr. MAXTON: In the case of the examination that is to take place in the Bridgeton Division, will the right hon. Gentleman provide an escort for those who have to carry out the test?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that certain boards of directors are submitted to this test?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And some Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. MACLEAN: 50.
also asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the results of the tests carried out by the Industrial Research Fatigue Board at the Govan Employment Exchange; whether these tests are now completed; and, if not, when they are likely to be completed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that the results will be published by the Industrial Fatigue Research Board in due course. I understand that the tests of applicants at the Employment Exchanges in Glasgow have been completed.

Mr. MACLEAN: How soon will that be published, so that we may know whether the test has been as valuable as the Minister says it is?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that these tests have led in other countries to great social reforms? [Interruption.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is an insult to women. Why should she not be tested?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will please not shout across the Floor of the House, or I shall have to take strong action.

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not referring to any individual.

Mr. MACLEAN: Do you not understand, Mr. Speaker, the amount of resentment that must be felt by Members who have coming to them in their constituencies women who have been sent in to be medically examined without being told that it was voluntary?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not mended in any way by shouting across the Floor of the House.

PERTH-INVERNESS ROAD.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to say how many men engaged upon relief work on the Dalnaspidal road scheme have been unable through inclement weather to earn a living wage, and having been compelled to return to Dundee have been refused further benefit at the Employment Exchange, and are now in receipt of parish council relief; and if he proposes to see that relief work upon which a living wage is impossible shall not be imposed upon applicants for insurance benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have obtained and am considering two local reports on the conditions of employment on the Perth-Inverness road at Dalnaspidal, and hope to be able to communicate the result of the inquiries to the hon Member in a day or two.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the wage sheets which I sent to him, showing that men were unable to make more than 12s. 2d. per week, and what decision has he come to on the matter?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am getting information on those cases which the hon. Member sent me, as well as on the others, and I am considering the whole matter.

WOMEN WORKERS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many women workers of all classes there were in this country in 1913; and how many there were when the last figures were drawn up?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The figures asked for are not available for 1913; but the numbers of females returned in England and Wales as gainfully occupied at the 1911 and 1921 censuses were as follow: 1911, 4,830,734 (aged 10 years and upwards); 1921, 5,065,332 (aged 12 years and upwards).

WOOLLEN TRADE DISPUTE, KIRKHEATON.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the dispute at the factory of Messrs. Broadhead and Graves, worsted manufacturers, of Kirkheaton, near Hudders-field, has arisen out of the way the employers at these works have interpreted the terms of settlement which were secured through the intervention of the Ministry of Labour in the general lock-out of the woollen trade of August last, and out of the victimisation of the secretary of the local trade union branch; and whether, in view of the fact that violence has been organised from within the factory and practised upon the other parties to the dispute by the supporters of the employers, he will make representations to Messrs. Broadhead and Graves regarding the carrying out of last August's agreement?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the dispute to which the hon. Member refers. The Emergency Committee of the Joint Industrial Council is dealing with the matter, and I hope that the efforts which are thus being made through the recognised machinery of the industry, to which the firm concerned is a party, will enable a satisfactory settlement to be reached.

Mr. MACKINDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the parties are going to meet?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are in touch with it at this moment.

ELECTRICITY BILL.

Mr. FORREST: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state when the Government's Electricity Bill wall be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is hoped to introduce this Bill shortly.

Mr. HARRIS: We have been told that for the last six months.

The PRIME MINISTER: The period of waiting is getting shorter.

ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the wages under which the workers in the engineering and shipbuilding industry of this country have been for years working; whether he is aware that for more than a year they have tried by peaceful persuasion to induce the employers to concede to them a higher standard of living; that a section of the London men have now withdrawn their labour as a protest against their requests being ignored: that in consequence of this the employers have threatened a national lock-out; and what action he is taking in the interest of the nation to prevent an industrial crisis which would inflict irreparable injury on trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the negotiations in the engineering and in the shipbuilding industries, to which the hon. Member refers. The threatened dispute is limited, so far as I know, to the engineering trade, and has developed as a result of a stoppage of work in a London engineering establishment. The Engineering and National Employers' Federation requested the unions concerned to instruct their members to resume work and thereafter to deal with the dispute in the constitutional manner. The executives of the unions replied that they were not in a position to comply with this request, and in the circumstances the Federation have notified them that there is no alternative but to proceed with the posting of notices dispensing with the services of the members of the unions concerned until the unions have carried out their obligations under the agreement to which they are parties. I understand that a meeting of the executives of the unions concerned, which was held yesterday to consider the situation, was adjourned till Friday in order that they may consult their London District Committees.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If you cast your eye on the last item in the question which I put to the Minister, you will see that I ask what action he is taking in the interests of the nation to prevent an industrial crisis. The right hon. Gentleman has not, in my opinion, answered that question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a meeting is to be
held on Friday, and I understood him to add that he was awaiting the result of that meeting.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with both sides to this dispute; and, if so, has he decided upon taking any action in order to bring these parties together and keep them together?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am in touch with both sides. I cannot say what may happen after Friday. That is hypothetical, but presumably any action which the employers take may depend on any indications which they get of the action of the executives of the trade unions on Friday.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the fact that the lock-out notices operate on 13th March, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the short time at the disposal of the unions in which to deal with this question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have all those facts in mind, but, as I say, as the meeting takes place on Friday next, I do not feel I can anticipate further than I have done very tentatively in my answer to the Supplementary Question what may happen on Friday next.

Mr. MAXTON: The original question has not yet been answered by the Minister. What is the Minister doing, apart from waiting? What else is he doing to prevent what will be almost a national disaster?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is this. I am in touch with both sides, and I use my own discretion as to what action it is right or not right to take.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that, in the long run, a subsidy will settle it?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FARNBOROUGH (TECHNICAL STAFF).

Colonel DAY: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of technical experts employed at the Royal Air Establishment at Farnborough, together with the amount of salaries paid such officials?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The staff and
salaries of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, including the airworthiness department staff located there but not forming part of the establishment proper, are set out in detail under Vote 3 of the Air Estimates, 1926, pages 19 to 23. Whether certain of the employees there detailed are included in the term "technical experts" or not is a matter of definition, but if the hon. and gallant Member will draw the line himself I think he will find the information he requires in the Estimates.

PILOT OFFICERS (ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES).

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what number of pilot officers who have served with service squadrons are now employed in an administrative capacity by the Air Ministry?

Sir S. HOARE: On the assumption that the figure desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is that of the number of officers who have qualified as pilots, the answer is 81.

IRAQ FORCE (HEALTH).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the health of the officers and men of the Royal Air Force in Iraq is satisfactory; and whether there has been any undue amount of illness during the past 12 months?

Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to be able to say that the health of the Royal Air Force in Iraq has been satisfactory, and that there has been no undue amount of illness reported during the past 12 months.

FLIGHT PROGRAMME (AFRICA).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 62.
also asked what is the approximate time within which the flight now being carried out by the Royal Air Force in Africa is to be completed, and what will, be the mileage flown?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, it is expected that the programme of the flight, which includes visits of varying duration to Pretoria and other centres as well as to Gape Town, will be completed within three months. The answer to the last part of the question is approximately 10,000 miles.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR PILOTS AND FIRST LINE AEROPLANES.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN FORCES.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 56 and 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the present strength in fully-trained air pilots and first-line aeroplanes of the following Powers: France, Italy, and the United States; whether he has any information showing the extent to which the above-mentioned Powers intend to increase these air forces in pilots and first-line machines in the near future; and whether he has any information as to the cost of the proposed increases;
(2) the amounts spent on their respective Air Forces for the financial year 1925–26, or during the last account period available, translated for purposes of comparison into pounds sterling at present rates of exchange, of the following Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States; and whether he can state the number of first-line aeroplanes available in a sudden emergency at present maintained by the above-mentioned Powers?

Sir S. HOARE: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As regards the first line aircraft of France and Italy, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) on 10th February; according to the latest information available the first line strength of the United States is about 600 machines. Whilst these countries have not, so far as I am aware, recently published any exact statistics of their flying personnel, the report of the Morrow (American) Aircraft Board gives the number of Italian pilots as 921, whilst the corresponding French figure is shown as 3,184. The same report gives the number of United States pilots as 1,473. I understand that the French Naval Air Service is eventually to be increased to 50 squadrons, and the Italian Air Service to 182 squadrons, but I have no information as to the cost involved nor of any contemplated increases in the French Military Air Service or in the United States Air Services.

As regards the amounts spent in 1925–26, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on
29th July last, it is not possible to segregate the expenditure of France and the United States upon their air services from their general naval and military expenditure on a basis comparable with British air expenditure—and adequate information is not available in regard to the cost of the Italian air service. In this connection I may say that the Norrow Report above referred to expressly recognises the impossibility of comparing the so-called air expenditure of the various Powers.

As regards the air expenditure of Great Britain, I would refer my hon. Friend to Air Estimates. A deduction of approximately £1,250,000 should, however, be made from the figures there given in respect of civil aviation, meteorology, supplies to British and Indian Army personnel in the Middle East, and other services which cannot properly be included in the cost of the Royal Air Force.

Further, Air Estimates include, in addition to maintenance charges, a large element of capital expenditure in connection with the expansion of the Royal Air Force for Home Defence.

CIVIL AVIATION (ACCIDENTS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number

Miners' Welfare Fund.


—
Contributions collected during the year ended:
Total.


31st December, 1923.
31st December, 1924.
31st December, 1925.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


England
…
664,674
13
6
747,354
19
6
731,023
13
5
2,143,053
6
5


Scotland
…
143,997
6
1
160,885
2
8
150,827
19
1
455,710
7
10


Wales (including Monmouth)
…
220,300
12
8
238,237
8
1
224,466
18
6
683,004
19
3


Total
…
1,028,972
12
3
1,146,477
10
3
1,106,318
11
0
3,281,768
13
6

SUBSIDENCE.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the increasing damage to dwelling houses and public buildings, the owners of which are suffering hardship by reason of the financial loss sustained through the effect of subsidence due to underground work

of accidents during 1924 and 1925 in which civilians carried by civil air services operating to and from this country were involved, and the number of fatalities?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards British civil air lines, there were in 1924 one fatal accident involving eight deaths and three accidents without casualties; there were no accidents in 1925. As regards accidents on foreign air lines in this country, there were two accidents without casualties in 1924, and one fatal accident involving one death and injuries to two passengers and two accidents without casualties in 1925.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

WELFARE FUND.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines what amount of money has been collected from England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, through the mines welfare fund during each of the last three years?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The answer contains a number of figures, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

ing, he will represent to the Commission on Subsidence due to Mining Operations the desirability of expediting their Report?

Colonel LANE FOX: I understand that the Commission are now engaged upon the preparation of their Final Report, and that its issue will not be long delayed.

Mr. PALING: What action are the Government taking to put into operation the recommendations already made in The Interim Report?

Colonel LANE FOX: I must ask for notice of that question.

BOLDON COLLIERY.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he purposes to bring pressure to bear on the Harton Coal Company with a view to the restarting of the Boldon Colliery, by asking the Government to withdraw their aid given in the form of subsidy, especially as that company has been found to be in the wrong consequent upon their not carrying out the decision reached by the national settlement made on 31st July, 1925?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to use his influence with these people and to try to get something done in this matter?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this company is now giving 14 days' notice; and will he consider taking steps to stop the subsidy until the company carries out its legal obligations to the men?

Colonel LANE FOX: It seems obvious that the remedy suggested in the question would be a futile one. To make a threat of a refusal of the subsidy, in my view, would have no effect.

Mr. BATEY: If it is suggested that this remedy is futile, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate what other remedy he suggests which would be effective?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. May I have an answer to my question? The right hon. Gentleman said the suggested remedy was futile What remedy will be effective?

Mr. SPEAKER: That must be raised in debate—not now.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that of 10 concessions asked for by the owners of Boldon Colliery the workmen have conceded eight, and in the ninth an amicable agreement was reached, and that only one, the question of working four shifts, which would mean continuous work at the coal face by hewers is now outstanding; and, viewing the recent reports made by local inspectors as to the conditions obtaining, will he make representations to the owners to withdraw this condition in view of the risks to the life and health of the workmen involved?

Colonel LANE FOX: I understand that the facts, as stated in the first part of the question, are substantially correct. My Department has been in constant touch with the parties, and every possible effort has been made to bring about a settlement. I am advised there are no grounds of health or safety on which I can intervene, and I am afraid that I have no power to do anything more.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, as he ought to be aware, that in July, 1924, his inspectors reported that there were no less than 14 places in which they found inflammable gas; and is it the case that although this was reported by the local inspectors there are no reports entered in the reports book as regards this as well as cases of broken timber and other matters—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. BATEY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue the matter now.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.

Mr. EVERARD: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions for the pollution of rivers undertaken by the Fishery Boards in 1925 and the amount of fines imposed?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Mr. GUINNESS): The only case of which my right hon. Friend is aware was the prosecution by the Trent Fishery Board of the Melton Mowbray Gas Company. The Magistrates felt obliged to dismiss the case on the ground that it had not been proved that the Company
knew that they were polluting the river, but it is understood that as a result of the prosecution the pollution has been stopped.

Mr. EVERARD: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the position in regard to the pollution of rivers is becoming gradually better year by year?

Sir H. BARNSTON: The pollution of rivers has been engaging the serious attention of the Fisheries Department, assisted by a voluntary committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MINIMUM WAGES (WOMEN).

Viscountess ASTOR: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure that effect shall be given to the will of Parliament, since the recently published Report of Proceedings under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, shows that the Act is being administered to the prejudice of women, although, as stated in the Report, it was the intention of Parliament that there should be no such discrimination?

Sir H. BARNSTON: The fixing of minimum rates of wages is entirely in the hands of the Agricultural Wages Committee, and every Committee has duly fixed minimum rates for female workers. The late Minister pointed out to the Chairmen of the Committees in April last that certain incidental provisions inserted in the Orders relating to men had not been applied in the case of women, and my right hon. Friend hopes that the special reference to the matter in the Report in question will receive the careful attention of the Committees concerned.

FARM SETTLEMENT, PARTINGTON.

Captain BOURNE: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether Mr. William Gavin has yet reported to him on the farm settlement at Partington; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of publishing such Report for
the information of Members of the House of Commons?

Sir H. BARNSTON: The answer to the "first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is proposed to publish Mr. Gavin's report in the next Report of the Department upon proceedings under the Small Holding (Colonies) Acts, for the three years ending 31st instant which is now in preparation, and will be presented to Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE KIOSKS, LONDON.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of erecting in the Metropolis, in approved positions, telephone kiosks similar to that installed at Bath, which is fitted with stamp-selling machines and letterbox, and is' open to the public day and night?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The kiosk at Bath to which my hon. Friend refers was erected in special circumstances, and was experimental. The question of extending the experiment and of obtaining a standard design for telephone kiosks fitted with stamp-selling machines and a letter box is now under consideration.

TYPISTS (CLASSIFICATION).

Viscountess ASTOR: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General how many writing assistants and members of the typing grades, respectively, have been classified as A, or above average, in the following offices: Post Office Savings Bank; Accountant-General's Department, London; Accountant-General's Department, Edinburgh; Stores Department offices at Studd Street, Bedford Street, Holloway, and Somerset House; Engineer-in-Chief's office; London engineering district; Secretary's office and the Secretary's registry, London; Birmingham Stores office; postmasters' offices; and the various district managers' offices?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Office.
Writing Assistants classified as "A."
Members of the Typing Grades classified as "A."


Savings Bank Dept.
31
2



(see Note l)



Accountant General's Dept., London.
83
6


Accountant's Office, Edinburgh.
13
(see Note 2)


Stores Dept., Studd St.
4
3


Stores Dept., Bedford Street.
2
2


Stores Dept., Holloway
3
1


Stores Dept., Somerset House.
Nil
1


Engineer-in-Chief's Office.
3
2


London Engineering District.
None employed.
10


Secretary's Registry
9
21

The writing assistants and members of the typing grades employed in the Stores Department at Birmingham, and in postmasters' and district managers' offices generally, have not been classified.

Note 1.—The 133 senior writing assistants only have been classified.

Note 2.—There is no special typing staff for the Accountant's office, Edinburgh. The staff attached to the Secretary's office serve that office, and of these two have been placed in Category A.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

EASTFIELD RUNNING SHEDS, SPRINGBURN.

Mr. HARDIE: 76 and 77.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that on the 5th February last Robert Low was killed at the Eastfield Running Sheds, Springburn, while taking an engine through the shear lege; that these shear legs have been obsolete for some time; that the permanent way passing under these legs has been used as a permanent way despite the fact that the increase in the size of locomotives has increased the dangers while passing through this erection; and will he ask for the removal of the legs or prevent the permanent way being used as a through way;
(2) what were the first-aid provisions existing at the Eastfield Running Sheds, Springburn, on 5th February, 1926; and
whether there is a place provided for the reception and first-aid treatment of injured men?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): An inquiry has been ordered into the circumstances of this accident, but I have not yet received the report of the inquiry. In these circumstances, I am not yet in a position to answer the specific questions which the hon. Member raises, but any recommendation on these points that may be made in the report will receive my careful consideration.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Minister the power to ask for the removal of such dangers as those mentioned in the question?

Colonel ASHLEY: I must have notice of that.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman has got the powers?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should have notice of that question. I really do not know exactly what is the point which the hon. Gentleman wishes to put.

Mr. HARDIE: When there is an obstruction upon any of the railways, has the right hon. Gentleman no power to ask for it to be removed when it is a danger to the men?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is a question of law. I shall need to have notice of the question.

Mr. HARDIE: If it is a question of law, why does it come under the Minister's ken?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have legal questions, just as other Departments have.

Mr. HARDIE: If it were a legal question, it would come in the Scottish Courts. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is going to do it or not?

MOTOR ACCIDENTS (THIRD-PARTY RISK).

Mr. GRACE: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to compel motorists to insure against third-party risk?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am considering this point, at any rate in so far as public service vehicles are concerned, in connection with the Road Vehicles Bill, which I hope to introduce.

Mr. GRACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a pedestrian is knocked down by a rich motorist, he gets compensation, But if by a motorist who is a man of straw and uninsured, the man gets nothing at all? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that right?

Colonel ASHLEY: I informed my hon. Friend in my answer that I am considering this point in connection with the Bill which I hope to introduce.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that very large numbers of commercial travellers use cars, not in the ordinary way, but for their employers. So that this is a point of considerable interest?

Colonel ASHLEY: That raises the question as to whether you should insure the driver or the car.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL).

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the business to be transacted at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations next week at Geneva, particularly as regards the claims of certain States to be granted permanent seats upon the Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to-morrow to move the Adjournment of the House after Questions, in order that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may make a full statement to the House, and allow time for discussion afterwards.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: With regard to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-day, will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us how far he proposes to go?

The PRIME MINISTER: The wording of the Motion which stands in my name was adopted five times last year, and takes this form so that, in the event of
the first Private Bill being disposed of, the second Private Bill can be taken before Eleven o'Clock. If that were not done, we could only take one Private Bill, and would have to take the other on another evening.
As regards the business, we propose to take the two Reports of Supply for the 11th and the 24th February. I do not propose to ask the House to take the Committee stage of the Trade Facilities Bill, because there are some Amendments down for that which may need discussion, but I hope it will be possible to take what is practically unopposed business, namely, the Committee stage of the Public Works Loans Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is not proposed to take the third item [Supply: 1st March, Report] on the Order Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister ought not to be in the form of two Motions—one dealing with public, and the other with private business?

Mr. SPEAKER: A similar Motion has been several times before the House. It is possible, if desired, to take the last words in a separate Motion. I think that would be very inconvenient to the House.

Mr. J. JONES: In response to the reply made by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, may I be allowed to ask if the House of Commons will have the right to give instructions to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate is for to morrow.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 138.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forrest, W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Gates, Percy.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, Viscountess
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grant, J. A.
Murchison, C. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Berry, Sir George
Gretton, Colonel John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bethel, A.
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nuttall, Ellis


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brass, Captain W.
Hanbury, C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harland, A.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holland, Sir Arthur
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Homan, C. W. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandon, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jacob, A. E.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Cope, Major William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Skelton, A. N.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lougher, L.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Elveden, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


England, Colonel A.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacIntyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fielden, E. B.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warrender, Sir Victor




Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Watts, Dr. T.
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wells, S. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Wise, Sir Fredric



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles dwards.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Captain REID: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Empire Development, and move a Resolution.

LIBERAL PARTY LEADERS.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the extraordinary and varied number of Leaders in the Liberal party, and move a Resolution.

STATE ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to possible avenues of assistance by the Government to industry, and move a Resolution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (VISITORS).

Mr. W. THORNE: Before you proceed to the Business of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to you affecting me personally? On Monday afternoon I was taking a number of children through the
House. At the entrance to the Library there is a notice posted up "Silence." I was explaining to the children the names of the Speakers whose portraits are there. I understand that I have been reported in consequence for a breach of the Rules. As a matter of fact, I did exactly the same thing again to-day, and I understand that one of the hon. Members for Portsmouth is going to report me again.

Mr. SPEAKER: No report has yet reached me. If it does, I will deal kindly with the hon. Member.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in view of the fact that the libraries are the only places where private Members can transact their Parliamentary correspondence, you will consider if they can be closed to the public during the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not prepared, without notice, to deal with any suggestion of that kind. I am, however, always open to receive suggestions from the hon. Member about the rooms of the House.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the tremendous amount of interest taken by the school children in this Houses and in the long list of your predecessors, will you, Sir, take that into consideration if any representations such as we have heard of are made?

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not take any decision in a matter of this sort without consideration of both points of view.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899 (PANEL)).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Members from the Parliamentary Panel appointed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Mr. Sandeman and Mr. Frederick Thomson; and had appointed in substitution Major Broun-Lindsay and Mr. Stephen Mitchell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Crawfurd; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Garro-Jones.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Re-election of Ministers Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Mason and Mr. Roy Wilson; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Apsley and Major Tasker.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Cluse, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Major Coif ox, Major Courtauld, Mr. Ernest Craig, Sir Thomas Davies, Mr. Dean, Captain Eden, Mr. Forrest, Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Major Glyn, Mr. Hammersley, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Kelly, Major Kenyon-Slaney, Major-General Sir Richard Luce, Sir Frank Meyer, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Riley, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Shepherd, Lieut.-Colonel Stott, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes, Mr. Trevclyan Thomson, Mr. Thurtle, Brigadier-General Warner and Mr. Womersley.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [11TH FEBRUARY].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925–26.

CLASS VII.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding i£182,381, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Expenses in connection with the Administration of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, &c, Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and certain Grants-in-Aid."

CLASS III.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Grants in respect of Police Expenditure and for a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation in Scotland."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I think it might be convenient that I should say a few words at the outset of this Debate. When this Vote was last before the House, a number of questions were put to the Government on a subject which peculiarly affects the question of house-building in Scotland. I should like to say that, since the last Debate, I have had the opportunity of various conversations, not only with hon. Members belonging to this House, but also with the parties interested in this problem—with representatives both of the employers and the employed. I should like at the outset to say that I met the representatives particularly of the trade unionist movement, and that I received from them assurances that they desired in every way to facilitate the progress of
house-building in Scotland. I am grateful for that assurance, and I accept it in the spirit in which it is made. Though these conversations which have taken place have up to the moment led to no definite conclusion, I do not think it can be said that it is impossible that such similar conversations might be re-opened. I, at least, am always willing to do anything I can to facilitate progress in this matter. I am speaking, not only for myself individually, but for the Government as a whole and, as I believe, for the great mass of the people of this country, irrespective of any party, when I say that our one and main concern is rapid progress in house construction by whatever method may be possible.
A good deal was said in these conversations, and something was said in this House, about rates of remuneration as far as they affected the labourer and the semi-skilled labourer in these concerns; and, while on the one side I must assert that in the contracts into which the National Housing Company of Scotland are entering there is inserted and will be inserted the Fair Wages Clause, I am bound, on the other hand, to say that in the judgment of the Government that Fair Wages Clause is properly inserted, and that it is being interpreted in the proper spirit. I have not taken the attitude that there was no possibility of some accommodation upon such matters as the rates of wages for the unskilled or semi-skilled operative engaged upon the production of these houses, nor do I think that anything which has passed up to the moment rules out the possibility of further consideration of that question. If, however, it is felt that over and above this the request must be pressed for full building trade rates and conditions, notwithstanding new methods and simplified processes deliberately adopted to avoid calling upon highly skilled building trade craftsmen and to give employment to other classes of men, then, in my judgment, a new difficulty is created. We should then be asked to go back upon the considered judgment of the Bradbury Committee's Report and, indeed, to adopt a policy which would be inconsistent with the principles of modern industrial development. I say that, because I want it to be clearly understood that, so far as we are concerned, our interpretation of the Bradbury Committee's Report
makes it clear that new methods have been adopted, that they are capable of being put into operation by unskilled men, and that the essence of this scheme is that it should call upon a pool of industry which is not concerned in house-building by ordinary methods.
I can only add that we are faced to-day in Scotland with a problem of enormous magnitude, but we have at the present time sanctioned a scheme for the construction of anything between 13,000 and 15,000 houses, and that number may be materially increased. I venture to hope that nothing will be said in this Debate which will preclude the possibility of proceeding at the greatest possible speed with the development by ordinary building methods, nor, indeed, anything which would utterly close the door to further negotiations, if possible, upon the minor questions. Having listened with the greatest care, not only to the development of the Debate in this House, but to the conversations which have taken place outside this House, I cannot help saying that in my judgment, if a reasonable and helpful state of mind is adopted by the parties engaged in this problem, it is not beyond human conception that we may arrive at an arrangement which will be just and fair to the men who are employed in the production of these houses under these methods and which will give what the country demands, the rapid production of houses, the necessity for which is so clamant that it does not require reiteration on my part. I ask the House to give me this Vote. I ask it not in any party spirit. I do not speak in any manner inimical to the interests of any class or industry in this country, but I appeal to the common-sense of this House, and I appeal to the common-sense and for the support of the great mass of the people outside this House.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I venture to say, certainly for myself, that I welcome most cordially the tone of the speech to which we have just listened. Hon. Members who were present at the Debate on the Committee stage of this Vote will agree, I am sure, that what was done then was to state a case against what appeared to be the intentions of the Government at that time, to state a case not for the purpose of obstructing house building, but of getting complete agree-
ment between the parties then in disagreement. My hon. Friends around me voted the money on the Committee stage for the purpose of giving an opportunity, between the Committee stage and Report stage, to the various sides, with, as we hoped, the good offices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to come to an arrangement. I understand that in the interval the Secretary of State for Scotland has had communications with both sides separately, I think, and also together.

Sir J. GILMOUR: indicated assent.

Mr. MacDONALD: Then that is right. We are all very glad that everybody has been co-operating to see whether an agreement can be come to. In stating the position we are in to-day, I do not propose to go into details. My hon. Friends who have been more at the point of battle than I have been may later on give details of the failure to come to an arrangement; but it is very important at a moment like this when everybody is striving to get these houses built with good will, that we should understand the sort of general, fundamental position that is taken up. This is no question of steel houses, or brick houses, or stone houses. We have expressed our views about them, but there is no Member of this House who will stand up and say that a matter of prejudice or taste or sentiment should stand in the way of building shelters for the people of Scotland. I have expressed my prejudices and my tastes. They have gone. We want houses. But it is really very hard to put a body of men like those with whom I have been co-operating in this horrible dilemma: "You want houses, everybody wants houses, but we are going to put you in the position of appearing to refuse houses because you are standing for certain customs and certain agreed standards of pay and conditions." I think that is a most unfortunate position in which to put any body of men, but that is the position so many of my friends, especially those outside the House, are in.

Mr. J. JONES: The doctors would not stand it.

Mr. MacDONALD: I only propose now to see if we cannot have another little common push to end it, and to come to a complete agreement. We take our stand on two things—the Fair Wages Clause and the Bradbury Report. The Govern-
ment say they take their stand on the Bradbury Report. So do I. Let us deal with the Bradbury Report first. As I say, I am only going to deal with general conditions and not with details. The Bradbury Report lays down two things, and not one. The Bradbury Report can only be carried out if both things are observed, and not only one.
What are the two things the Bradbury Report contains? First of all, that in the making of these houses a sort of new class of industry has been created. That is quite true. It says that that class has not yet been dealt with, has not yet been recognised; it is not within the engineering block of industry and not within the house-building block of industry; it is a new set of operations, and the Bradbury Report says this new set of operations must be organised, and must be the subject of consideration, and that wages and conditions should be established without association with either of the organised forms of labour which we know at the present time. I think that is quite clear. That is one of the conditions of the Bradbury Report. The other one is also essential, and it is, that when the wages and the conditions of that group are settled, they must be settled by collective bargaining, that it is not enough for a good employer or a bad employer—the question of the character of the employer does not enter into it—to say, "I will give you this wage or that wage." The wage may be high, it may be low, it may be satisfactory, it may be unsatisfactory, but if the Bradbury Report is to be carried out, that wage, whatever it is, must be the result of collective bargaining and of common agreement. I think that is quite clear. The second part is not fulfilled. Therefore, when the Secretary of State talks about new methods, we agree, but when he talks about pay, we rather disagree, because the pay has not been satisfactorily settled.
Take the Fair Wages Clause. Exactly the same point is involved there. The Government may put the Fair Wages Clause into its contract. Everybody who has administered the Fair Wages Clause knows perfectly well that the point of it lies in its application. Let us take the repairing of the fabric of this House. When such repairs take place, supposing the work is let out to contract, the Fair Wages Clause would be in the contract,
and there would be no trouble about its application. We never have to raise the question of whether it is being applied or not, because before a mason lifts a hammer or a chisel he knows his scale of pay, he has his schedule of pay, which has been the subject of collective bargaining, and which is put automatically into operation. Here the Government are going to put the Fair Wages Clause into operation in respect of men whose status is still a disputed point. In order to make the Fair Wages Clause operative, in order to carry it out, the Government must first of all have collective bargaining, must have an agreement, not between Mr. A, the employer, and Messrs. B, C, D and E, his employés, but between Mr. A, the employer, and an organisation representing his employés.
Let us carry the matter a little bit further. I do not want to use words or to refer to categories of labour which might raise prejudice, but one section says, "This group of men belong to category A," another section says, "It does not, it belongs to category B." The House should remember that the contention of the Building: Trades Federation is that in so far as labour belongs to the building trade it should be paid building trades rates. I understand that that was made perfectly clear. Take the question of labourers. The argument is put up that if labourers are employed, it is quite right that they should be paid upon rates as paid to labourers in trades who themselves have declared that they are not concerned with this matter at all. Our contention is that the Fair Wages Clause can only be applied to those labourers doing building trades work if they are paid building trade labourers' wages; and, unless that is met, neither the Bradbury Report nor the Fair Wages Clause is carried out.
That is the position on what we might call the principle. Let us take the practical side of it. If all the houses were to be built by one firm, the firm with which there is a dispute—well, you could have your fight, and you could impose your agreement, and every man building a house under that scheme would be building under the same conditions. But that is not the situation. Half the contract is being given to one firm, and the other half divided equally between two other firms, and these other two firms are
going to build under an agreement which the firm with the larger contract rejects. Let hon. Members use imagination. We shall have two houses, one on one side of the road and the other on the other side. No. 70 in a certain street will be built under conditions and under rates of wages lower than those applying to No. 71, on the other side of the road. The Duke of Atholl, in a very temperate and very impressive communication to the "Spectator" this week, points out what every employer and every man and woman of common sense knows is bound to happen, that either the employer has to reduce wages on No. 71 to the level of the wages on No. 70, or the workmen engaged on No. 70 will, sooner or later, strike in order to get the same wages as are being paid on No. 71. We cannot get out of that, and nobody who knows human nature will try to get out of it.
Therefore, what all sides of the House have to do, Conservatives, Liberals and Labour, is to get things levelled up so that Nos. 70 and 71 will be built under exactly the same conditions, and the men will enjoy the same conditions. That is our case. I never claim any virtue for this side that I do not give to the other side, but there is a little bit of difference between us in experience. Some of us have had experience that hon. Members opposite have not had, and they have had experience that we have not had, but there is this experience that we cannot get away from—you cannot satisfy, and you ought not to try to satisfy the claims of workmen in the settlement of a temporary wage by saying. "We will give you £2, £3 or £4 a week," without a guarantee, because the whole experience of the workmen is that only in so far as they get a good wage guaranteed by collective bargaining, a good wage settled by a signed agreement, can they feel at rest that that wage is going to last. Otherwise, it is a good wage one week, a reduction the next week, and there is always uncertainty. The working classes want security, and I hope hon. Members will now understand the position. It is not enough to say that the wages are good. This is going to be a long contract, and we want to secure that these wages will be guaranteed right through the contract and that the men will receive honest pay at a rate that will not be challenged.
Therefore if we cannot get the security we are seeking we shall have to take the only course we can take now by voting against this proposal on the Report stage. On the Committee stage our position was perfectly clear and it was then our duty to vote for the money in order that between the Committee stage and Report stage we might be able to negotiate the conditions. If those conditions are good then we have got all we want, but we must protest against any attempt to drive back again a great industry into accepting lower wages. I believe that steel houses have come to stay and mass production has come to stay. Therefore this is a critical moment, and if labour cannot win its point in regard to collective bargaining and obtaining a satisfactory standard of wages, then it has lost the battle. Therefore we have to see that collective bargaining is applied to the new conditions of labour under these contracts.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: The Leader of the Opposition gave an example in which he said that they could not agree to two different prices being paid for labour for the erection of house number 70 and house number 71. Do hon. Members opposite not know that that practice already applies to the building trade, and you frequently find workmen in A, B, and C areas working at different rates of pay?

Mr. MacDONALD: I understand that there is no area divided by one settlement. Perhaps in one case 300 houses will be built and in another 200. It may be proposed that 100 houses of the 200 will be built under one set of conditions, and 50 others under two separate contracts may be built under different conditions, but the workmen will not accept that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Like the two speakers who have initiated this Debate, I should like to see that the real issue is not obscured in any way. It is common ground that there is need for houses in Scotland. It is also common ground that workers in Scotland are living in shameful, horrible, murderous conditions, and it is no earthly use for hon. Members on either side of the House attempting to dispute that this state of things exists in Scotland. We have all seen the houses where the children are bitten by rats and
which are infested by lice. We have seen houses with roofs in such a condition that men will not go on them in order to do the necessary repairs because their lives would be endangered. Therefore, in regard to these horrible conditions in Scotland, I think we are all on common ground. It is also common ground that there is need for alternative schemes of some kind to speed up house building. Our case against the Government is that, under cover of the national necessity for the building of houses in adequate quantities, the Government are, as the lawyers say, principiis criminis, because there is danger of an effort being made to reduce the standard of living of those engaged in the house-building industry, and I am going to prove it.
My reason for speaking this afternoon is that I have personally investigated the facts, and I hold in my possession documentary evidence which I will give to the House. I have here wages sheets, certificates from contractors, and telegrams from competitors with Lord Weir in this industry, and I ask hon. Members to weigh, well the evidence I shall put before them, because, if proper conditions are not insisted upon, serious political and economic results may follow. As the Leader of the Opposition said, 50 per cent. of this contract is going to the firm of G. and J. Weir, and the other 50 per cent. is being divided into two equal portions between the Atholl steel house firm and the Cowieson house firm. We are told that Lord Weir is signing the Fair Wages Clause, but he chooses to interpret that not as the building trade employes interpret it, not as the Trade Unions Congress interprets it, and not even as the building employers, who are Lord Weir's own competitors in alternative house building, interpret it. Lord Weir's firm is going to insist upon the rate of wages paid to the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and he is not going to allow builders' rates to be paid, because he declares that it is not a builder's job, and I understand that the Government are supporting that contention. A very considerable atmosphere of hostility has been aroused in certain sections of the building industry because it is the common practice in certain sections of the newspaper Press to declare that those engaged in the building industry are a lazy lot, some
of them laying one brick per week, and not even that if nobody is looking. It has become a commonplace that the workmen in the building trade work in an atmosphere of suspicion created by what has appeared in the Press, and it is often asserted that they get far too high wages for the kind of work they do.
Let us get down to the real facts of the case. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland either to confirm or dispute the statements I am going to make. Is it the case that the workers in the building trade of this country have not claimed, and do not claim, that the steel structural part of Weir houses is a building-trade job? Is it not the case that they have repeatedly said: "We do not claim that the new part of this work is a building-trade job at all"? Why has that statement not been made to hon. Members of this House? It has been repeatedly stated by deputation after deputation, and this has been clearly stated to Lord Weir and to the Government, and it has been asserted very clearly, as far as the building trade have access to the Press, that it has been agreed that the steel part of Weir houses has nothing to do with the building trade, that the wages paid to the steel workers is a matter for the workers and not for the building trade, and that they do not claim to interfere at all. These new houses are being built, and steel work is being put into them. We have seen them in Glasgow, and we have seen in the case of banks and other buildings steel erection going on, and there has been no trouble with the building trade. The building trade have never said, "That is our job," and the Government know very well that they have never claimed that. I never thought that I should ever be able to quote in this House from the Duke of Atholl, who has no sympathy with us. He was a prominent official in the Conservative party in Scotland. This is what the Duke of Atholl wrote to a Conservative newspaper, the "Spectator," last week:
In justice to the building operatives, I wish to say that not the slightest obstacle has been put in the way of those firms who pay recognised rates to tradesmen employed on their own jobs, and the statement chat has been circulated that they are objecting to steel workers and erectors not being paid the wages of masons or bricklayers is entirely false. What they do object to is that men employed, for example, on carpenters' jobs, should be paid engineers'
rates instead of carpenters' rates, thus striking at the very foundation of the protection given by the trade unions to workers in their own special trades.
The statement has also been made and the opinion is widely held that the Atholl firm and the Cowieson firm are only paying in reality the same rate of wages as the Weir firm have been paying. I am in a position to prove that that is not true. I hold in my hand wages envelopes paid to labourers under the Atholl scheme last week, and I can give the names if the Secretary of State for Scotland disputes these facts. Here is the case of one man who worked 44 hours and was paid 1s. 3½d. per hour. I have another case where a man was also paid 1s. 3½d. per hour. All labourers are paid that rate, which is the building trade rate, on Atholl houses. I have here a statement which was sent to me by a contractor for the Atholl firm in which he says that the men employed as labourers on the Atholl steel houses are all paid 1s. 3½d. per hour. That is the rate for unskilled labour in the building trade, and that rate is paid in the case of Atholl houses.
Now what is the rate paid by the Weir firm on the opposite side of the road? Do the Weir firm pay 1s. 3¼d. per hour? No, they pay 10½d. per hour. I know it has been argued that this is not a building trade operation. A man on one side of the street takes a pick and shovel and digs a hole in the earth. He is working for the Atholl firm, and gets 1s. 3¼d. an hour. A man further up the street, with a similar pick and shovel, digs another hole. He is working on the foundations of a brick house, and he gets 1s. 3¼d. an hour. But another man, again with a similar pick and shovel, is digging a hole for a Weir house, and he gets 10½d. an hour. Is anyone going to dispute that in each case that work, done with the same kind of pick and the same kind of shovel, is the same job? And yet Lord Weir, up to now, has paid 10½d. per hour to the labourers on foundations—I am only dealing with foundations—and up to now has refused to pay any more, while his competitors in the industry, who are not associated with any wild men on these benches, but who are his Grace the Duke of Atholl and the Cowieson firm, are busily engaged in this new industry and are paying 1s. 3¼d. an
hour. For the life of me I cannot see how any hon. Member in this House can justify the differentiation.
I have dealt with the unskilled labour; let me now come to what is called the skilled labour. In this case the Duke of Atholl and the Cowieson firm are paying 1s. 8d. per hour, while the Weir firm is paying 1s. 2½d. per hour. The labourers, who are working 44 hours per week—that is the normal number—are losing 4½d. per hour as between the two schemes. Hon. Members can calculate it out for themselves, and they will find that it means a reduction of 17s. 5d. per week to each labourer engaged on the job, and, in the case of the skilled men, at least that, and it may be a great deal more. I have said that the difference in the rates of wages paid to skilled men is the difference between 1s. 2½d. and 1s. 8d. If that be disputed, I have certificates here from the firm of Cowieson, from the Atholl firm, and from the firm of Brownlie, of Cambuslang, who have been doing the major portion of the work on the Atholl houses. I will read them out if the House wants proof that the rate of wages which they are paying is 1s. 8d. per hour, while the rate that is being paid to men who are doing the same class of work on the Weir house is 1s. 2½d.
What is the kind of work that they are doing? They are laying floors. Is not that a joiner's job? Since when has it ceased to be a joiner's job? The Atholl firm recognises it as a joiner's job, and pays 1s. 8d. The Weir firm say it is not a joiner's job; they say, "It is a labourer's job, and we will pay you 1s. 2½d." Since when has the laying on of a roof not been a skilled craftsman's job? The Atholl firm, for that work, pay 1s. 8d. an hour, and the Weir firm 1s. 2½d. It is the same thing with the hanging of doors and the building of partitions. That is obviously work for skilled craftsmen, and it has hitherto been universally recognised as such. For that work the Atholl and Cowieson firms pay 1s. 8d., while the Weir firm gets off, with the assent of the Government, at 1s. 2½d. The same thing applies to plumber's work and to slater's work—work that is definitely the work of skilled craftsmen. But along comes Lord Weir. He does not seek to negotiate, he does not say, "I have used the machinery that is already in existence as between
employers and employés in the building industry to get a new scale or a new set of conditions arranged and agreed to"; but, over the heads of employers and workmen, over the heads of his competitors, the other manufacturers of alternative houses, he comes along and says, "I demand, I insist, I order," and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland carries out his instructions.
Let me give proofs of some of the assertions I have made, in case later on in the Debate the facts are disputed. Here is the statement of the firm of D. and R. Fulton, registered plumbers and sanitary engineers. They say that in the case of foundations, drains, plumbing work, the putting in of electrical cables, and so on—there are any number of other jobs which I need not mention—
We hereby certify that all our workmen receive building trade wages and conditions.
That is including all the labourers, who are paid 1s. 3¼d. per hour, and the workers in the other trades are paid the proper rates for their jobs. Again, I have a certificate from Messrs. Brownlie, of Cambuslang, that all the tradesmen and labourers employed on the Atholl steel houses for Messrs. William Beard-more and Co., of Dalmuir, are paid the building trade rates of wages, namely, 1s. 8d. per hour for craftsmen and 1s. 3¼d. per hour for labourers. Here also is a statement from the Cowieson firm, signed by Mr. F. D. Cowieson, the managing director:
Dear Sir,—We beg to inform you that the labourers employed by us digging trenches, making and filling concrete, etc., in connection with our different contracts, are paid the recognised standard, in other words, 1s. 3¼d. per hour, and also that this rate will be paid to men engaged on similar work in connection with the proposed Government steel housing scheme.
Finally, I have a statement from the Atholl firm, and if the right hon. Gentleman disputes it I will read out the letter. Does he dispute that the Atholl firm pay 1s. 8d. per hour to skilled men and 1s. 3¼d. per hour to labourers? I ask him for an answer. Does he dispute that, apart from steel erectors' work—which has not been claimed by the building trade—1s. 3¼d. per hour is paid to labourers and 1s. 8d. per hour to skilled craftsmen? I think we are entitled to an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
I make the statement that that is so, as against 10½d. and 1s. 2½d. in the case of Weir houses. I go further. I have spent long years in the Labour and Socialist movement, and have done a lot of historical research in the records of trade unions and so on, and I never before knew such a case as this, where a federation of unions went out of their way in order to get peace in the industry and to ensure that house-building should be carried on at the maximum rate of production, and where they have made such an offer as the Federation of Building Trade Employes have made to the Weir firm. It is almost incredible. They said to Lord Weir, "We will not insist that all the men who lay the floors and the roofs, who hang the windows and doors, and the men who do plumbing and electrical work shall be members of our union. We let you go and get your labour where you like; the only thing we insist upon is that the job shall carry the rate of wages." With that offer goes by the board all the clap-trap about the building trades seeking to preserve a close monopoly, and seeking to prevent an influx of new labour into the industry. So also disappears all the tripe—because it is nothing else—that it is the wicked building trade worker who is keeping back the production of houses. They have been ready to allow an influx of new labour, and to allow the Weir firm to employ as many unskilled men, as they call them, as they like on the job; the only thing they appeal for, the only thing they demand, the only thing they insist upon, and the only thing upon which this party will desert them at its peril, the only thing on which we will fight for them, is that the rate of wages for the job shall not be broken, and that the standard of living of the working classes shall not be lowered. The job must carry the rate.
One or two points more, and I have finished. In the contract that is being offered to the Atholl firm, it is insisted upon by the Government that only 10 per cent. of the labour employed shall be building trade labour—they have to go outside for the other 90 per cent. They cannot do it if the Government say that shipyard labour is to be regarded as building trade labour. There are 400 joiners idle in Glasgow, but the Duke of Atholl is not to be allowed to employ those joiners on his job; he is to be com-
pelled to go to the Employment Exchange. He is to pick out 100 or 200 unemployed men—it may be clerks, or grocers' assistants, or lawyers, though I do not suppose there will be many of these last. He is to be compelled to go to the Employment Exchange and take what is called his unskilled labour from there; and then, in the shipyard, if you please, he is to take 100 unskilled men from the queue, and then he is to go back and sack 100 joiners, because he is not to be allowed to employ more than 10 per cent. of building trade labour.
I have said all that I intended to say. I trust that the Debate this afternoon will be confined directly to the real issue between the two sides of the House. The issue is whether, during this national emergency in regard to the building of houses, during this national emergency in regard to accommodation for out people, this House is going to support the Government in lending themselves to one employer, who has never made any secret of his hostility to the working-class organisations and to trade unionism—whether this House is going to lend itself to a lowering of the standard of life of the working classes and to a lowering of their purchasing power, or whether it is going to line up with decent employers like the Beardmore firm and the Cowieson firm, and prevent this inroad which Lord Weir, with the connivance and assistance of the Secretary of State for Scotland, is endeavouring to foist upon the people of this country.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question, in order to make the matter clear? Does the hon. Gentleman say that the figures of 10½d. And 1s. 3¼d. per hour are or are not the result of collective bargaining?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I say, in reply to that question, that, so far as the Duke of Atholl is concerned, it is the result of collective bargaining. If the hon. Member desires it, I will read out his letter.

Mr. SKELTON: I mean Lord Weir's figures.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Lord Weir insists that he will pay anything he likes. Up to now he has paid 10½d. per hour, which is the rate for what is called unskilled labour in the engineering industry. He
has refused to pay the wage rate paid to labourers engaged in the building industry. The Duke of Atholl agrees to pay the rate paid in the building industry; Lord Weir refuses.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman has not really answered my question, which was, does he regard the 10½d. or the 1s. 2½d. as a wage rate arrived at by collective bargaining or not? Because the Leader of the Opposition said it was not.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Building Trades Federation arrived at the figure of 1s. 3¼d. by collective bargaining with, all the employers in the industry, and they have machinery for settling disputes with which Lord Weir will have nothing to do. He will not attend to put his own point of view, but stands outside and says, "I insist on my miserable 10½d."

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry, but this is a vital question, and the hon. Member will not answer it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is asking whether the 10½d. rate was arrived at by collective bargaining. That 10½d. rate is a rate arrived at by collective bargaining in the engineering industry, and Lord Weir now seeks to apply a wages rate applicable in the engineering industry to the building industry, in order to lower the wages paid in the building industry.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I am in the unfortunate position of opposing this Vote from a different point of view altogether from the one already expressed. I am opposed to the building of steel houses. I believe that as far as the West of Scotland is concerned, if there had been a proper organisation, steel houses would not have been necessary, and I am of the opinion that no real attempt has ever been made, particularly in the West of Scotland, to organise the building operatives and to make the best possible use of labour resources. I am also of the opinion that no attempt has been made to deal with the question of the supply of material. I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland to notice this. There has been in the town of Buckhaven since 1921 a population of just over 11,000, and there have been 550 houses built by the
authorities, 100 private houses built for private owners, and there are now 300 under construction. That is in a community of 11,000 people. There has been no trouble at all between the employers and the operatives, and nothing has come in the way of providing either the material or the workers. But that is not all. In this little East coast community, the colliery owners have also been building, and there has never anything come in the way of providing the necessary houses for the employés in the collieries round about. But here in the city of Glasgow we have had a condition created mainly by the Governments that have been in existence since 1920, and the only real attempt that has been made was made when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) held the position of Minister of Health. He attempted to lay a plan by which a 15 years' programme should be entered into. The building trades operatives agreed to work it to the best of their ability. We know quite well that the present Government never viewed that particular method with favour, but have clone their beet to stop what I think would have been good results from the scheme laid down by the Member for Shettleston.
Here I want to put a straight question to the Secretary of State for Scoland or the Under-Secretary for Health. What guarantee was given to Lord Weir when he laid down the plant in that new factory for the building of steel houses? I remember quite well how it was started. It started with a Press campaign for the purpose of reducing the wages of the working class. It started with that fight against the conditions of the building employés. There must have been an assurance of some kind from the Government of the day before he would, according to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. E. Mitchell), lay out £60,000 in the establishment of a factory for this purpose. We are entitled to know what assurance was given, and why, because we are told that already he has lost a considerable amount of money. In my opinion, the present Government, instead of assisting in the building of houses of the ordinary kind, are putting everything in the way of providing houses, so that Lord Weir may carry through his scheme of building steel houses for the working classes who do not want them. What are the facts
of the case? When Lord Weir built his exhibition steel house, and when the people of Glasgow were invited to examine it, and when the building committee of the Glasgow Town Council took up the question of the steel house, they decided against it. It was not suitable, and they would have none of it. Then, when the Prime Minister came here on a Friday afternoon and told the House of Commons that he was giving a new subsidy up to £40 more than was being paid, even then the Glasgow authorities would not entertain the steel houses, and to-day there is most bitter opposition being shown by the city authorities in Glasgow against the building of steel houses. I object to steel houses because they are a waste of the taxpayers' money.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if this is a temporary house, or is the Leader of the Opposition right; and are we going to have steel houses as a feature of building in this country? Are we to take it that you are only going to build 200,000 houses, and when you have recouped Lord Weir for his capital expenditure you will give up the idea? I hope, if you carry this through, that it will be the last of the steel houses. When some of my colleagues on this side of the House refer to steel houses in Canada and the United States, I would call their attention to the fact that the life of the ordinary steel wire in the United States and Canada, compared with the life of steel wire in this country, is as 13 years to three. The atmosphere there has not the same effect upon steel or iron as in this country. At the end of five or seven years your steel houses will have become shanties and unfit for occupation. You have between the outer steel wall and the inner lining a space of four inches that will lend itself to the vermin coming into the house, and be a nesting place for vermin of all kinds. You cannot possibly keep them out, because the method of laying the floor will allow mice and rats to get through into that cavity much easier than in any other house.
I hope that hon. Members will understand the reason why we have not had building in Glasgow. Many hard things are being said about the local authorities in that city, but I want to point out the peculiar position in which Glasgow found itself. After 1912 we had an extension of
the boundary of the city of Glasgow, and under that Act the Glasgow Corporation had agreed to build town halls in certain parts of the city, baths for the benefit of the people, and libraries. All that had to be undertaken after the War. You may call them luxury buildings, but even the libraries and towns halls would not have materially affected the amount of work. In the city of Glasgow since the War we have had more luxury building than in any other city I know. There have been picture houses, banks and luxury buildings of every conceivable kind. If we had been in earnest about our scheme, and as much in earnest as we were in winning the War, when, for the purpose of destroying life and property, all the ingenuity and the power of production of this country was used, why should we not put the same methods into work now and use all our power in the production of houses of the right kind, but not steel houses? On the east coast of Scotland, in Sheffield and in every part of the country, even Glasgow itself, we have built real houses cheaper and quicker than Lord Weir can build his steel houses. According to the "Sheffield Independent," there was a meeting in Sheffield of representatives of the Building Trades Employers' Association, and the chairman made this statement:
Sheffield had got over the difficulties of the supply of labour and material and was ready to proceed with as many houses as the local authority could finance. We have got the men and the material, and we have been able to show that we can produce real houses considerably cheaper than steel houses.
Why can we not do that in the city of Glasgow? It is because, in my opinion, we have given assurances and the Conservative Government have made pledges to Lord Weir that they would do all they possibly could to recompense him for the outlay he had made in 1921. No one can be more in earnest that I am as to the necessity for having houses, for I represent perhaps one of the most overcrowded constituencies in the city of Glasgow. I know quite well that the slum dwellers in my constituency are not going to occupy your steel houses. They will not be able to pay the rents of your steel houses, and not even the humblest among them will accept even a steel house unless the conditions are what have been asked for by my fellow Mem-
bers on this side of the House. We are at least of this opinion that, if we are forced to accept steel houses, and if the Government are going to be behind Lord Weir in the building of these houses, it will not be to the interest of the lowly class in my Division, and it will not be their desire to bring down the conditions that our men have fought for for so many years.
Unless you are prepared to observe these conditions you are up against a position that will do more to stop house building than any act of any individual amongst the parties of the country. Your steel houses cannot possibly meet the climatic conditions of Scotland. There is not the slightest doubt about it. I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. You can work on people's imaginations at times. I ask him to consider the possibility of taking two rooms after they are completed by Lord Weir and engaging a scenic artist. In one of the rooms you might have a little arctic scenery—frost and snow and ice—and the tenants could go in there during the summer months. It would have a cool appearance. He could have in the other room, perhaps, the interior of a forge, or the glow of the sun in the summer time, and they could go in there in the winter and, in their imagination, think they were warm. Lord Weir's houses even now cannot keep out the outside atmospheric conditions, and the housewife has to wipe down the walls because of the condensation inside. These things are bound to continue, and I am opposing Weir houses because they are not fit for our people, because we deserve something better, and because I believe we could get something better if we were in earnest in organising all the resources at our command.

Captain A. HUDSON: I did not intend to take part in the Debate except for what fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I think he put the case extremely clearly, and certainly to me it is a very interesting case. But no one so far seems to have put the case as seen by a Member of Parliament who is not interested m the building trade but is trying to see both the point of view of the building trade operative and the point of view of Lord Weir. The whole object, as I see it, of these Weir houses is to try to find another source of supply
which will not in any way tap the building industry, and to do that they are going to try to use the workmen who are employed in the engineering trade, and also the large number who could be employed in it but who are at present unemployed owing to the very depressed state of that industry. Lord Weir looks upon it in that light, and he says he can erect a steel house entirely by engineering methods and using the employés in the engineering trade unions. He wants to do that and not to touch the building unions. In doing that he says he will pay fair wages, but the wages he will pay are those of the engineering trade and not of the building trade. The 10½d. that has been mentioned as the pay of the unskilled labourer is, I believe, the trade union wage for unskilled labour. [HON. MEMBERS; "No!"] Surely it is the unskilled wage in the engineering industry. I believe the hon. Member himself said so.

Mr. HARDIE: My hon. Friend was making a comparative statement. No matter what kind of house is to be built, whether steel, brick or stone, certain foundations have to be dug all the same, with the same implements, doing the same job. It was for that that he quoted the figure.

Captain HUDSON: I was present when the hon. Member spoke, but I understood that 1s. 3¼d. was the wage for digging foundations of an unskilled man in the building industry. He then said the wage paid by Lord Weir for doing the same job was 10½d. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) asked him afterwards if he could tell him what that wage represented, and where that 10½d. came from, and he then said it was the unskilled wage for an unskilled man doing any job, as far as I could gather, in the engineering industry. He was also asked if that had been got by means of collective bargaining, and I understood him to say that was so—collective bargaining within the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

Mr. KELLY: I think the Amalgamated Engineering Union has never at any time in its long history, right up to this very afternoon, agreed upon any rate for what you term the unskilled, or, as I prefer to put it, the labourers' rate, and there is no agreement in the engineering industry. At present the rate that is paid is a rate that was imposed by the employers when
they reduced wages 16s. a week two or three years ago.

Captain HUDSON: I still stick to what I think we on this side agree, that that particular rate would be the rate which an unskilled man doing a job in one of Lord Weir's shops—an engineering shop—would get. It is to me an extraordinary thing that so-called unskilled men should in all these different industries be paid entirely different rates, but I maintain that that is a job for the unions themselves to work out. If Lord Weir is making his endeavour, as I understand he is, to make and set up thousands of these houses by mass production, making use only of the engineering trade, he has a perfect right to pay the wages that are universal in the engineering trade, and to say that if a so-called unskilled man is to be used for digging the foundations, he shall be paid whatever the rate happens to be at that time in the engineering union. You might just as well say that motor cars have got to be paid according to the building trade rate. He says—and it is a perfectly logical point—these steel houses are separate entirely from the building industry. The building industry has plenty to do in building brick and stone houses, and he wants to make use of the engineering industry completely and not touch the building industry in any way whatsoever. It is a perfectly logical point of view, and I think every encouragement should be given so that he can do so. The engineering trade is suffering very severely from unemployment and want of order, and if he can build the whole house and put it up, making use of men who would otherwise be unemployed, I say let him do it. It is a brave and a novel experiment, which I think will succeed. People are always saying, "You have, on the one hand, numbers of unemployed men, and, on the other hand, you cannot get houses built. Why not put the unemployed on to building houses?" As far as I can see, that is what Lord Weir is trying to do, and I only hope he succeeds in this experiment.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just stated this is a novel experiment on the part of Lord Weir. The speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the last occasion we discussed this
showed that it was no novel experiment with Lord Weir, who is an expert in smashing trade union rates and conditions. My colleague in the representation of Dundee has stated the case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits, very clearly, and it stands out prominently as regards the fixed disparity of wages, and in such remarkable circumstances that we have yet to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland an explanation of why there should be in the case of Lord Weir a derogation from the application of those principles and wage conditions which are already operated by those who are producing the other classes of houses. I am very glad that on this occasion the Labour party is as a whole facing this thing very straightforwardly. The conclusion of the Debate on the previous occasion left in the minds of some members of the Labour party, and evidently in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, the impression that some hope had been given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health that an adjustment would be made by Lord Weir. I expressed the view after that discussion, and when we had our interview with the right hon. Gentleman, that there would be no change in the attitude of Lord Weir. The position had been so impregnable from the standpoint of those who have in the Government supported him in this Department that I feel confident it was simply a matter of his lordship's own interpretation of the arrangement which gave the impression of a readjustment. It is evident that no readjustment is to be made, although we find the Secretary of Scotland has not, so far, sought to make any defence of the position taken up by Lord Weir.
The Leader of the Opposition has taken the point of view that this steel house business was inevitable and that nothing more could have been done. It stands to the credit of the former Minister of Health that his intention was to combat the building trusts. We know that some years ago they were so dealing with this national exigency as to exploit it for the purpose of enhancing their profits. Here is the practical situation to-day. The Government are backing the representatives of these capitalist concerns in seeking to make a substantial reduction in the
wages of those who are employed in this work. On the other hand, in these most unfortunate circumstances with which the country was confronted, when the building trusts were profiting thereby, the party opposite made no attempt to grapple with the serious situation. Their duty would have been, if it were a matter of consistency, to have come down upon these building trusts and have made it imperative, by control, that the provision of houses, upon which we are all agreed, should proceed rapidly and with satisfaction to all concerned. That did not take place. It is to some extent unfortunate that the Government have cited to-day, as they did in the previous discussion, the connection that there was with the Labour Government in making some approval of steel houses.
The steel house is advocated in comparison with the brick house on the ground that it can be produced more rapidly. Brick houses could have been produced rapidly in order to meet the requirements of the public, at a difference of from £60 to £90 in the price of the steel house and the brick house. The difference of from £60 to £90 is the figure given by those who are best qualified to make a statement thereon. With regard to the prospects of the steel house as something that has come to stay, it is worth while to consider statements made by those who know all about these matters. In a declaration issued by the Building and Engineering Brick Trade Association it is stated:
The internal linings of the steel houses are one or other of the patent boards nailed to wood studding or asbestos sheets, leaving a six-inch air space between the internal and external linings. If any of the internal sheeting is damaged (and the asbestos sheets are extremely brittle, so that damage is almost inevitable, especially where there are children) the whole sheet must be replaced, whereas damage to plastered walls is a local matter, easily remedied without disturbance to the surrounding work. All these boards and sheets in the steel house must be covered at their joints with fillets of wood, and to keep the cost down these must be as light as possible. Mischievous children might easily prise these strips off, and certain classes of tenant might even use them as firewood. These strips must be disturbed whenever a new board has to be replaced, and their presence increases the periodical bill for painting or scaling.
Forty to fifty years is the period allowed for the average life of the steel house. The brick house would stand at least three times as long as that. There is
rapid deterioration in the steel house. It is pointed out in the statement from which I have quoted that:
A steel house congeries of to-day is the scrap-iron slum of to-morrow.
We are often groaning about slums and about the necessity for the removal of slums. Here is an announcement from those who are qualified to speak respecting the steel house:
It is almost certain that the necessary funds will not be expended to keep the houses in repair, and they will at once begin to deteriorate. So soon as this happens the property will depreciate, the class of tenant become lower and lower, sub-letting and overcrowding will begin, and a new slum will come into being. It is not difficult to picture the squalid dereliction. As the sheets become loose they will bang and rattle in the wind, as the inner linings become broken the cavities will be filled with refuse and afford a rich breeding-place for germs and vermin, and amongst this rusty wreckage a population will shiver in winter and sweat in summer.
The pushing forward of steel houses all over the country is intended to give the impression that these houses are suitable for working-class people, following upon the experience in regard to wooden huts, which seem to be regarded as good enough for workaday people who are, at any rate, supposed to be content with them. Under these circumstances, the steel house is supposed to be a perfectly satisfactory provision. My contention is that the steel house is not a proper provision of accommodation for those who are the effective upbuilders of our country. The interests of the nation point to something entirely different. If we look at the other side of the picture, what about the magnificent mansions, what about those beautiful dwellings, the wonderful provision of large, commodious establishments, with spacious grounds and gardens and everything conducive to satisfaction? In these days, with our conceptions as to advancing science, art and literature, and our views as to the necessity for the defence of the Empire and that no money must be spared in that direction, the Government consents to an arrangement in which something is being put up in the form of steel boxes, and you are putting the people into them and shutting down the lid. God help the country if that is the conception of the right thing to do.

Mr. SKELTON: This discussion is being devoted to the merits of the Weir house. The critics have hopelessly overstated the case. In my own constituency, a Weir house has been occupied since the early days of last autumn, and the occupants have had to endure one of the coldest and longest spells of weather that we have had in Perthshire for many years. Despite that fact, they tell me most categorically that they found the Weir house perfectly satisfactory. To describe it as a steel box in which the unfortunate people are poured and the lid is then shut down, shows rather more rhetorical zeal than practical knowledge of the house.
The Leader of the Opposition, as I understood him, confined his criticism almost exclusively to the question whether or not there is in the case of the Weir contract a Fair Wages Clause, properly carried out by collective bargaining. It has been said categorically that there was no such collective bargaining. In the admirable and interesting speech made by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) I ask him whether in the case of two Weir figures of wages, namely, 10½d. an hour and 1s. 2½d. an hour, he regarded those wages as having been arrived at by collective bargaining. He did not answer my question, and for this reason, that I do not believe it is possible to maintain that these figures have not been arrived at by collective bargaining.

Mr. KELLY: They have not.

Mr. SKELTON: One hon. Member at least says they have not. I understand that the men employed at these wages are members of the Engineering Union.

Mr. MACLEAN: No.

Mr. SKELTON: Take the figure of 1s. 2½d. per hour.

Mr. HARDIE: You have not been properly briefed.

Mr. SKELTON: I have not been briefed, nor am I in the habit of being briefed for discussions of this kind. Take the figure of 1s. 2½d. Is it not the case that the men who receive these wages are members of the Engineers' Union? Is it not the case that this is the recognised figure of an hourly wage arrived at by collective bargaining in that union? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I should be
very glad to hear it clearly stated, not by way of answer to a question but in a speech by some hon. Member from the opposite side, that there is no collective bargaining in the case of the figure of 1s. 2d. per hour. I believe that there is. I have no doubt that that is so. That there has not been collective bargaining in regard to the Building Union is admitted, but that there has been collective bargaining in the relevant union, the Engineering Union, is equally clear. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] It seems to me that one side of this question which is becoming more and more clear is that hon. Members opposite are concentrating on what is really a quarrel between two unions. As far as I understand it, there has been absolutely no opposition in the Engineers' Union.
The opposition to Lord Weir's scheme and his rates of pay come entirely from another union. More than one speaker on the other side has said that it is the duty of the Government in these circumstances to fix the rate of wages. That is not so. I cannot for a moment agree to the proposition that where two unions are at variance as to the amount to be paid for a particular piece of work—[HON. MEMBERS: "What unions?"] The Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Building Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Perhaps some hon. Member will rise and give proof of his statement. Where two unions are at variance—

Mr. MACLEAN: They are not at variance.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member must listen sometimes.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. When an hon. Member makes a statement which is incorrect and he is corrected by hon. Members who know something about the matter, is it not courtesy on his part to accept the correction, instead of insisting in his ignorance that he is right?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members will have ample opportunity in their speeches to make any necessary correction. They cannot contradict everything by interruptions.

Mr. SKELTON: If and when two unions are at variance—if I am wrong
in that matter, as you have suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for correction—I cannot accept the proposition that it is the duty of the Government to decide which union rate shall be paid.

Mr. MACLEAN: Did they not do that in the wireless business?

Mr. SKELTON: That is not the question here. As a general proposition, it is unimaginable that it is the duty of the Government to settle a question as between two unions. It may well be that there should be some organisation to deal with the conflicting claims of two quarrelling unions.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is.

Mr. SKELTON: Then let such an organisation be applied here.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I assure the hon. Member that such an organisation exists, that such an organisation has decided the matter, and that the Amalgamated Engineering Union has agreed with the decision of the Trades Union Congress in this matter?

Mr. MACLEAN: He does not know anything about it.

Mr. SKELTON: I am delighted to have elicited that information, but he still refuses to answer my repeated question as to whether the 1s. 2d. is not the result of collective bargaining. It seems clear that it has been arrived at by collective bargaining with the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I do not think there is very much doubt about it, but, if I am wrong, I shall no doubt be corrected. For the first time, however, we have been told that a super-organisation of the trade unions has decided that in the case of the Weir houses a wrong rate of wages is being paid. It is well that such a decision should be made by the trade union organisation, but it is perfectly hopeless and unsound to maintain that a decision should be made by the Government. I have expressed to the House the two views which I hold. The first view is that the statement that there has been collective bargaining is not incorrect, and it is only incorrect in the sense that there has been no collective bargaining with the Building Trades Union. The other view is that in
that case it is not the job of the Government to settle the matter. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the ground of opposition now taken by the Leader of the Opposition, accompanied by remarks by hon. Members opposite that they are and always have been in favour of more houses, has narrowed the field of opposition very much, and the Debate has shown that even this restricted opposition is without any foundation whatever.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to ask the hon. Member just this one question. Does he consider it the duty of the Government to differentiate between two firms when one firm is paying as much as 17s. per week less than the other?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that question arises in this Debate. The question, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition, is whether or not there has been collective bargaining.

Mr. J. JONES: I have spent a good deal of my time in the building trade as a labourer, and after many long years we have reached the standard which now exists in that trade. It is not much, 1s. 3d. an hour for a labourer—and 6s. 8d. a letter for a lawyer, which sometimes does not take him more than five minutes to write. And yet lawyers get up here and with the greatest amount of ignorance talk upon subjects they do not know anything about.

Major O. STANLEY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to refer to the ignorance of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton). The hon. Member refers to a payment of 6s. 8d., when my hon. Friend is, in fact, a barrister and not a solicitor. The hon. Member opposite has therefore clearly demonstrated his own ignorance.

Mr. JONES: I am ready to apologise to the hon. Member for putting him on a grade lower than he really is. I thought he was a labourer just as I was a labourer in the building trade. We on this side of the House are not opposing any kind of house so long as it is a house fit for people to live in. What we are fighting for is a decent standard of life for the people who have to ercet these houses. Personally, I am opposed to tin houses. I do not believe my class ought
to be compelled to live in a worse kind of house; they should have the best. We used to live in brick boxes with slate lids; now we are going to live in steel boxes with tin lids; but if those houses are to be built we ask that they should be built under the best possible conditions. Hon. Members opposite and Lord Weir put forward the argument of the engineering trade rate because they know that this highly skilled trade, one of the most highly skilled trades in the country, has been brought down to starvation rates. That is our interpretation of their attitude.
The Building Trade Union is in a more fortunate position. They have been able to establish something like reasonable conditions of employment, shorter hours, better wages—and hon. Member's opposite are all Protectionists. They used to tell us that if we wanted better wages, shorter hours, and better conditions of labour, we ought to protect our industries. Here is a protected industry, the demand is greater than the supply, and the workers in the building trade have secured their present conditions by agreement with their employers. That is what hon. Members opposite stand for. They are always saying, let the workman and the employer come together. They have done so in the building trade, and we have got our regional agreements all over Great Britain. We have a national board fixing the rate of wages, hours of labour, the conditions of employment and travelling pay, and we have now reached the point where we are trying to solve one of the great problems in the building trade, that is loss of time through conditions over which we have no control. Employers and workmen, coming together, are solving these problems. Hon. Members opposite agree with this. Then why do they want to introduce info the building of these houses conditions which are worse than those agreed to between employers and employed.
What they really want to do is to bring the building trade workmen down to the level of the engineering trade workers. The only argument advanced is that there has been an agreement by collective bargaining. I wonder whether Lord Weir in the days of the War, when we were very busy, when we were all waving the Union Jack in front of union jackasses—and I was one of them—would
have proposed to reduce the wages of the engineers to their present level. Then we depended on the engineering workers for the production of goods required to beat the enemy, but since the War is over the engineering trade has been brought down to almost starvation rates. Here in London a skilled mechanic gets £2 18s. 6d. a week, and a builder's labourer 1s. 3d. an hour. A skilled mechanic gets less than a builder's labourer, and Lord Weir comes in with his little lot and says "I think I can take advantage of this situation and get my workers cheap, at 17s. 5d. a week less." Are you going to ask us to submit to that? You may have your brick or tin houses, but we are going to see that decent conditions are obtained for those who have to build them. The General Council of the Trade Union Congress has had this matter under consideration. The Amalgamated Engineering Union is part of it, and although it may be to the advantage of some of its members to work for lower wages, yet they have unanimously decided against the proposal. They are not going to be used as an instrument to reduce the rates of wages of their fellow workers in another industry. Lord Weir can build his houses, and you can have your houses if you come to an agreement with the general body of workers in the country.
Some of us are opposed to steel houses altogether on general grounds, not because we are opposed to Lord Weir or opposed to steel houses as such, but because the whole of our experience has led us to this conclusion, that they are not the kind of houses people should live in. Two ladies have volunteered, I believe, to live in them for a month. I have lived in one longer than that—I have been in gaol. I believe Mrs. Baldwin, the Prime Minister's noble lady, has volunteered to live in one for a month, and a lady member of our own Party has done the same—two months' hard labour. I do not object to them having this experience for a month, but it is not really a good test, because the people who will have to go to these houses will have to live in them all their lives. If they were good enough for other people then, of course, they would be good enough for us; but that is not the case. If they were movable, you might take them to the
Riviera or to Switzerland, but we who have to live in them cannot move very far.
This Weir scheme may be all right so far as a rush proposition is concerned. You may describe them as brick boxes or tin boxes, but the first consideration we demand is that there shall be decent conditions for the workers in their construction. A sum of 10½d. an hour against 1s. 3d. is an impossible proposition. The building trade is against you; the whole trade movement is against you. If you bring down the building trade workers to the present level of the engineering trade workers it will mean that the engineering trade workers will go down to an even lower level than they are now, and then they will be in a condition in which it will be impossible for them to pay even for steel boxes. About 13s. 5d. is now being asked for a cottage in my own district and that is an impossible proposition having regard to the rate of wages. Therefore we demand, as a first condition, decent conditions of employment for the men who are going to build these houses.

6.0 P.M.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: The point at issue to-night is one regarding the trade unions and rates of wages. Hon. Members opposite have adopted an hostile attitude to steel houses. They would have us believe that the steel house is inferior and unfit to live in; that there is something degrading in asking people to live in such houses. I want to meet that point. I have taken an interest in this question ever since steel houses were begun. I was probably the only Member who put in a paragraph in his Election address stating that in his opinion too many large houses and too many highly-rented houses were being built under the housing schemes then in force. My constitutents agreed with me, or, at any rate, the statement did not prevent my election being successful. I went to the Weir works at the very start and saw these houses being turned out. I saw that the preparation of these houses in mass production was an engineering operation. I saw several of the houses which have been erected as demonstration houses both in Scotland and in London. There are 100 Weir steel houses erected in my constituency. I have seen them during the process of erection and since they have been finished. The people occupying them
have no complaints to make; they are thoroughly pleased with the houses, and they find them vastly superior to the houses which they occupied previously. In fact, there was only one complaint that I received the last time that I went there, and that complaint came from those who had not been successful in getting the houses allotted to them. It was the people who could not get the steel houses who were complaining, and not the people who were in the houses.
It is time that we heard the last of complaints in this House against steel houses. The steel house is quite a good house for a family to live in, and very much better than the places in which many of our people in Scotland were living in the slums. The Weir houses are good and they are suitable for the purpose for which they are intended. They can be quickly erected, and, so far as we are aware, they are likely to last for a sufficiently long time. Then we come to the question of the wages of those who erect the houses, and the trade union question. The fact is that, in Scotland, we have not sufficient workmen in the building trades by a long way to erect the houses which are wanted. That fact has been brought out again and again. There is a shortage of many thousands of houses in Scotland to-day, and it is a fact that if all the building labourers and builders were occupied continuously for 15 years they would not succeed in making up the shortage.

Mr. MACLEAN: They would make it up in five years.

Sir A. SPROT: It is, therefore, necessary for us to have an alternative system of building, and we welcome these Weir houses as very suitable for the purpose for which they are required. Any one who objects to the erection of these houses is doing a great deal of harm in Scotland. We want the houses. We want to take the people out of their inferior dwellings and to start them in homes of their own. The sooner we can do that the better. Therefore, I say that anyone who is militating in any way or for any reason against the erection of these houses in Scotland is doing incalculable harm. I do not think that the trade unionists in the building trade are justified in their opposition. I cannot profess to know the rates of payment in
the building trade, but it appears to me that it would not be possible for any alteration to take place in the rate of wages to workers on the Weir houses just now, because the arrangement has been made for their erection. We are being asked to sanction the erection of 2,000 of these houses. The Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland has gone into the figures and so has Lord Weir, and any alteration in the rate of wages, it appears to me, would vitiate the whole bargain and upset the contract that has been made to provide these houses. Anyone who takes it upon himself to oppose or obstruct the scheme which the Secretary of State for Scotland has so wisely undertaken is taking upon himself a very great responsibility, and he ought to justify his conscience in the matter. I have great pleasure in supporting the Secretary of State for Scotland in what he has undertaken. I think he has behaved with a great deal of strength and forethought. He has gone into the question very thoroughly, and the House ought to support him in what he is proposing to do, and give him the opportunity of erecting the houses which are so urgently required.

Mr. HARDIE: After listening to the Debate on this subject a few days age and again to-day, I remain convinced that it is a shadow fight. There are two situations which might be applied to the Government. One is that the Government are being dominated by Lord Weir, and the other is that the Government are using Lord Weir in an organised attempt to reduce the standard of working-class living in this country. There have been no arguments brought forward in favour of the scheme by the other side. It has been noticeable that those who have spoken from the other side are Members who have no practical experience or knowledge of the subject. That has been the whole trend of the speeches by lion Members opposite. The standard of housing that was promised after the War was something better than what we had experienced as a working class in this country. It was realised that to improve the standard of housing it was necessary to improve the standard of living and of wages, so that people could pay the rents of the new houses. Now the Government have gone right back upon that and have started what they call a system, whereby they are going not only to reduce the
standard of the houses, but in the erection of these inferior houses they are seeking to reduce the earnings of those who will have to live in the houses.
The last speaker was very far at sea when he made reference to the number of building trade workers in Scotland. He does not seem to realise at ail that he is a member of a party which is in power. If the party which is in power had been anxious about getting houses built for the workers there would have been no talk by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Prime Minister about a shortage of plasterers. There would be plenty of plasterers if the Government had desired to build working-class houses. They would have said that if there was to be any limitation of work the limitation should apply to banks and other buildings that were not intended for human occupation. The Government cannot do that because they are being dominated by private interests and not by the interests of the nation and of the people. We are told that this is an emergency scheme and a temporary thing. If I know anything about emergency schemes, they cost generally about half the price of the permanent thing. But there is nothing temporary about these prices. The houses are temporary in construction, but permanent as to price. To-day it has been stated that this kind of house has come to stay. I hope that that is untrue. I can imagine what it will be like to have all these stark things flung over the landscape. The houses have not come to stay. All that is necessary is that the people should have some prolonged experience of living in them, and not the experience of a few months only that some people have suggested. Let the Government wait for two years and they will get their reply.
Another statement made on behalf of Lord Weir's position was that this was a new industry, that Lord Weir with his great brain power had created a new industry. If Lord Weir had created a new industry he would have required to create new tools. If anyone knows the history of industry he knows that he can judge it by the tools that are used. This is not a new industry. Take the Weir house. Is there any indication of a new industry anywhere in it? The cutting of the steel sheets to the size required is
not a new industry. The boring of the holes to take the nails is not a new industry. When you take the sheet away you are left with wood-work only, and for that bunch of timber you are paying the highest price that could be paid for any timber that you care to buy as a joiner's production. That is not a new industry. Imagine the Secretary of State for Scotland trying to get anyone to agree that by using a spade on this side of the road it was an old industry, and that by using a spade on the other side of the road it was a new industry. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is a Scotsman. He would not say that when speaking for himself, but he does say it in speaking for the Government.
I want to get the special attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to one matter. A part of my constituency has been chosen for the erection of some of these houses. We have heard pathetic tales in this House of the horrible conditions in Glasgow, where rats attack the children. We have also heard the statement that you cannot lift a man from dirty surroundings and put him in clean surroundings and expect him to change all at once. The site chosen for the houses in my constituency is up against a canal, so that rats at least are assured in these new dwellings. Had the Secretary of State for Scotland anything at all to do with the choosing of that site? Had he any investigation made by people who knew what they were doing? Does he realise that there is not a foundation upon which to build a house without digging down about 13 feet? Does he realise that it will be necessary to have concrete pillars right down through the ashes to the base? We have never been told who are to be the owners of these houses or what is to be the rent, or how the rent is to be fixed. Is it to be 5 per cent., 4 per cent. or 2 per cent. on the money? Who is going to fix the charge? Have costs of upkeep been fixed? Have the Government realised that in my constituency, where they are trying to put up these houses, there will be a heavy cost because there is no proper foundation; and is that to be reckoned as a cost against the firm which builds the houses, or is it to be a direct charge on the Government? If houses are built in this district to which I refer, the dwellers will be chiefly of the labouring class, and the question of rent is of great importance.
Over 20 years ago a number of gentlemen in Glasgow formed the Glasgow Dwelling House Company. They bought old buildings cheaply, because those buildings were infested with vermin—not the four-footed kind, but the smaller kind. They applied the knowledge and experience of architects and builders to the conversion of these buildings into dwellings where people could live under clean conditions. They were taught by the experience of people in the building trade, that in order to eliminate vermin it was necessary, wherever possible, to eliminate seams in the buildings in order to prevent the collection of dust. They did so, and they accomplished a great deal. Here we have the Weir house, and how many seams are there inside it? You have joints in the woodwork, and, though you may run a strip of beading or a plain strip round them, you have seams on every side to catch the dust. I mention the Glasgow Dwelling House Company to emphasise the fact that they did not deal with this matter as the present Government are doing. They took advantage of experience and knowledge which are always available and which can be bought if it is desired to make use of them. I suggest that no experienced man can have been consulted about the erection of these houses in my constituency. Had that been done, it would have been pointed out that their proximity to the canal increases the possibilities of vermin; that there is no proper drainage, and that the nature of the site will increase the expense. We are being told of the great economies which the Government can effect; yet, in this case within my own personal observation, they have not shown the slightest foresight or the slightest desire to take advantage of the knowledge which is available.
In regard to the question of wages, there has been no argument from the other side to justify the reduction of any man's wages, especially when that man is doing the same kind of work as that for which the higher wages are being paid. If the Government are going to carry out at least some of their own ideas, they should remember that every time they decrease purchasing power, either by reduction of wages or otherwise, they injure trade. Let me issue a word of warning as one who knows Glasgow and its trade unions very intimately. The Secretary of State for
Scotland said he hoped they would be able to come to terms. Well, you are not going to come to terms by hoping, but by-doing, and what you have to do is to tell one man that he is not to be allowed to dominate either the trade union movement or the present Government. The conceit of some people, who go about thinking they are able to dominate the Government and the trade unions! But that type is going to have its swelling reduced, and it is going to be done in Glasgow. The Government are not going to get away with this matter by thinking that, because they have a big majority in this House, they can put the trade unions in the box. They cannot do so, and I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will see to it that more common sense is exercised in dealing with this matter.

Major KINDERSLEY: I desire to put some questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland in reference to the company which is, I understand, being formed to carry out the scheme. I notice the explanatory note in the Vote is as follows:
Advances to the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, towards the provision of share capital and otherwise towards the company's expenditure.
What is the total capital of the company? Is the sum of £200,000 the total capital, or is there to be other capital supplied from other sources? The wording "towards the capital" suggests that other capital is being found elsewhere. I think it is also right that the House should have an opportunity of seeing the memorandum of articles of association of the company. During the previous Debate on this Estimate the Leader of the Opposition had a copy of that document, and raised several points upon it. I suggest that copies should be laid on the Table of the House or placed in the Library, where they can be inspected by hon. Members. We should also know who are the directors, what are their qualifications as directors, and who is chairman. Finally, the Secretary of State for Scotland should give us some information as to their remuneration. This is an entirely new departure, and it may be perfectly right. I am not in a position to criticise it until I have more details, and I therefore content myself at present with raising these points, and
asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us the information which I have indicated.

Mr. MACLEAN: I took no part in the previous Debate on this subject because I had hoped to learn all that was to be learned in regard to the Government's agreement with this housing company, and the three firms who are to build the houses. I wished also to find out how far they were going in regard to the conditions of employment in the erection of the houses. To me, this is not a question of several unions squabbling as to who is to do the work, or who is to have the highest pay. To me it is a question affecting the people of Scotland who want houses and are unable to obtain them. It is a question of how far the propositions of the Government are likely to satisfy the desires and the needs of these people. The alternative scheme of the so-called steel house seems to me a mockery of those people. I cannot see the necessity for any alternative scheme. The hon. baronet the Member for Northern Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) said there were not sufficient workers in the building trade in Scotland to solve this problem by ordinary methods within 15 years. I submit there are sufficient building trade operatives in Scotland, if they were employed entirely on the erection of houses for the people, to solve the problem not of the mere yearly requirements of the people, but also to take up the arrears of housing due to the War, and complete all schemes inside seven years.

Sir A. SPROT: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Baronet may shake his head, but I feel certain that he does not know the number of building trade operatives in Scotland.

Sir A. SPROT: That is not the information given to us by the Scottish Board of Health.

Mr. MACLEAN: Hon. Members opposite receive a lot of information from the Government and from other people on which they cannot depend, and which ultimately turns out to be wrong. I am giving information which I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland across the Floor of the House a fortnight ago. The Minister then said that in Scotland there were 69,000 building trade operatives, and of these only about 6,700 were
engaged on housing schemes. The rest were employed in the building of cinemas, warehouses, banks, and luxury dwellings. Calculating the number of houses required in Scotland, I contend that by the application of the labour of the whole of these people—instead of only 10 per cent. of them as at present—to the building of houses for the people, you could solve the problem in seven years.

Sir A. SPROT: The hon. Member in aware that under the Addison Scheme there was a prohibition against luxury buildings, but that scheme has expired. That was only for a time and the time is past, and we must deal with the circumstances as we find them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am dealing with the circumstances as we find them, and the circumstances are unfortunate, not for the hon. Baronet or for me, but for the people who want houses. It is in order to help in getting out of the circumstances as we find them, that I am taking part in this Debate. It is true that the Addison scheme with its prohibitive clause has corns to an end, but what is to prevent the Government from bringing in a new prohibitive clause against luxury building? Why do they not prohibit luxury building instead of throwing bouquets at Lord Weir and giving him money for breaking up trade union rates? If they were interested more in the housing of the people and less in the bolstering up of trade union smashers in the engineering industry, we might have something done for housing in Scotland. I am glad, however, that the hon. Baronet is moving our way, and perhaps by the end of the Debate he will have come all the way, and will accompany us into the Division Lobby. He now practically admits that if there were a prohibitive clause, these operatives would be able to solve the housing difficulty. Why does he not use his influence with the Government to get them to adopt a prohibitive clause, and put all the building trade operatives on to the building of houses?
It is said there is not sufficient material, but there is sufficient material for those who are engaged on luxury buildings. There is the most expensive wood, stones and slates, the finest plumbing, the best sanitary arrangements, and ample material of every description for
these purposes. There are offices which are 18 feet from ceiling to floor being made for people to work in during seven or eight hours each day, but the workman's wife has to live and work in a space of 8½ feet from floor to ceiling. She has to live there and spend 24 hours a day there. There is ample material, there is sufficient labour, and what is to prevent this Government, or any Government which may succeed it, from taking the material which is there to their hand, and the labour which is waiting to be used, and applying both to the housing problem? Private interests stand in the way. The hon. Baronet was speaking about the people from whom he had had complaints: only those who had not got steel houses were complaining. Has he received any complaints from any of his colleagues on those benches that they have not got steel houses? Are they complaining that they have not the opportunity of living in a steel house? You say they are good enough for your constituency.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please remember to address the Chair.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is speaking of his constituency. They are good enough for the constituents of my colleague who represents Springburn, and good enough for my constituents in Govan, but they are not good enough for a Tory Member of Parliament. Why not? If those houses are such wonderful houses, as they seem to be from statements coming from Members on the other side, I should have expected a rush from Tory Members to occupy them, and leave their inferior dwellings for the working classes to come along and inhabit them. It is quite evident they are not likely to yield up any of their privileges. In this Debate we are having it laid down from the other side, or from those who have spoken, at any rate, that this is a question that affects the working class, that it is a working-class housing question, that it is a question of a quarrel between unions, that it is a question of rates of pay. The building trade workers, they say, are selfish; they will not allow the engineering workers to be employed upon these houses. Let me quote a statement by an individual who, as an hon. Member, occupied a place in the Tory party. It is a suitable answer to arguments put forward on the other side against the
building trade operatives. What he said was:
The building employés are fearful lest they—the steel houses—form the thin end of the wedge by which their wages may be decreased. This is chiefly owing to the attitude taken up by the makers of one particular type of light house, an attitude which has reacted detrimentally on the production of every other type of alternative methods of construction, even although the latter are paying track-union rates. In justice to the building operatives, not the slightest obstacle has been put in the way of those firms who pay recognised rates to tradesmen employed on their own job, and the statement that has been circulated that they are objecting to steel workers and erectors not being paid the wages of masons and bricklayers is entirely false.
That statement comes, not from a Labour Member of Parliament, not from a bricklayer, not from a stonemason, not from a member or an official of any of the building trade unions. That statement was written by the Duke of Atholl, a Tory, an individual who used to be a member of the Tory party. He simply wipes out of account altogether every argument that has been put forward in this House to-day by hon. Members opposite. As far as I am concerned, at any rate, I see no reason for any alternative scheme of housing being brought before the people of this country. There is ample material, and there is a sufficiency of labour. All that is required is for the Government to have some courage, and to put a stop to the luxury building that is going on. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who represents a Glasgow Division, and who is frequently in Glasgow, knows perfectly well what is happening in the centre of that city. In the principal street of Glasgow, at two opposite corners, gigantic buildings are going up for banks, the finest of material, as I have said, being used, and building operatives being employed. Yet he has been telling this House that, because of the scarcity of labour in the building trade, and the scarcity of material, it is necessary for us to bring in steel and other alternative types of houses, and to get other labour to work it. His own figures, which he gave a fortnight ago, contradict entirely the statements he and his colleagues on the Front Bench have been saying for some time past.
What, I contend, the Government ought to do is to look upon this question as they stated it should be looked
upon in the early period after the War, that housing was a national question, when hon. Members and right hon. Members on that side followed the lead of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister, and who sits with the leaders of a disintegrated party, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). You agreed then that housing ought to be carried through as one of the most urgent problems that the Government then should tackle. Homes for heroes, houses by the hundreds of thousands, Addison schemes promulgated, the first duty of the Government was to provide suitable and comfortable housing for the people, and wipe the slums entirely out of existence! Seven years after that statement, this Government come forward and say, with their hands flung high to Heaven in despair, "We cannot provide the houses unless you agree to low wages, and accept steel houses." Really, for a Government to come forward in such a manner, shows how hopeless it is for this country to expect to be governed well by such a Government. Let them put into operation once again the prohibitive Clause that existed in previous schemes. Let them say, as this is a national problem, no luxury buildings shall be permitted until the houses have been built to accommodate the people. If they do that, all the trouble between Lord Weir and the building trade and the engineers will have vanished.
But if the Government go on grovelling before Lord Weir, accepting the ultimatum he has laid down, that he is not going to build houses unless the Government, and those prepared to work upon the scheme, accept the terms he has laid down—if the Government are going on those lines, they are riding for a fall. The right hon. Gentleman opposite smiles. Probably he thinks that with his 200 majority behind him, he is safe for another three-and-a-half years. The Coalition thought itself equally safe—and he was a member of it—but the Coalition vanished at one election. His own party vanished at a succeeding election, and came back only one-third of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "And then what?"] By a forgery it came back by an alternative method—like the steel house—of running an election, with a 200 majority, but representing a minority of the
electors of this country. On these Benches, and the Benches below the Gangway on this side, are the representatives of the majority of the electors who took the trouble to vote. On those Benches opposite are the representatives of the minority. I submit that this Government, even though they have a majority of 200 in this House, have no right to impose the conditions they are seeking to impose on the workers of this country at the behest of Lord Weir, and I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes back this Vote, reconsiders it, and brings it in with a statement to this House that Lord Weir and his company are not going to be permitted to do this, that is to say, if they do not accept my other suggestion about a prohibitive Clause regarding luxury buildings. But if they are wedded to the steel houses, if that be the highest to which their minds can soar in the housing of the working classes, let them at least say to Lord Weir, "You have got to observe fair conditions, not merely the Fair Wages Clause that was trotted out in the last Debate, but you have got to observe the best possible conditions for workers employed in the industry concerned," and that neither Lord Weir nor others are going to be allowed to use themselves as trade union smashers, and lowerers of the standard of life of the workers of this country.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) said at the end of his interesting speech that the issue before the House this evening was a question of wages, but, after all, the question to be put from the Chair is as to whether the House of Commons will vote a sum of £200,000 to the Government for the construction of houses in Scotland. For my part, I feel that the people of Scotland demand these houses, and that it is essential for all who have the interests of Scotland at heart, for all who feel the need of housing in Scotland, to support this Vote. At the same time, there was in the very earnest, serious and important speech by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. T. Johnston) a great deal that has not been attempted to be answered by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the opposite side. I do not know, for example, if the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot) was in the House when the hon. Member
for Dundee was speaking, because be certainly did not deal with what seemed to me to be the really important point put by the hon. Member for Dundee.
In the first place, the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanarkshire dealt with the numbers of workmen in the building trade, and he said they were quite inadequate to deal with the needs of the situation. But the hon. Member for Dundee made it clear that the building trade was prepared to welcome the employment of any number of men for this work, that they were not going to object to any number of outsiders employed by Messrs. Weir, or any other firm, on these houses, provided they got the rate for the job, and that, it seems to me, is the vital issue. It is a vital question upon which the House is entitled to a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland or from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. There appears to have been a great deal of misrepresentation on the point. Is it the fact that the Building Trade Unions did consent to the employment of men outside their own unions provided they received the rates of wages for the job? That is a very important point.
Another important point is this. It is quite clear, surely, that the jobs upon which the men are being employed are not engineering jobs. Obviously, too, it cannot be contended that the work of a man digging a hole in the ground to receive the foundations for a Weir house is quite different from the work of a man, who is digging a similar hole in the ground for a brick house? Nor can it be argued that such work is more like engineering work than like building work. Obviously, it is fair that the men should be paid the same rates as are paid in the building trade. That is the point of view taken by the other two firms. I have not the slightest interest in the Duke of Atholl. Very much the reverse, or in his houses; but it does seem to me that these two firms have taken the fair and reasonable view of the case in determining to employ their men at building trade rates so long as they are doing building work. As the Leader of the Opposition said, you have these men employed undoubtedly—if it is not the case perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us—you have on the one hand men employed on building Weir houses, and on the other hand
you have them building the Atholl and the Cowieson houses, it may be in the same street. Some of these men will be employed at the rates prevailing in the building trade, and some employed at the rates prevailing in the engineering trade. If that be so, then I agree with what the Duke of Atholl has said in the article in the "Spectator" which has been quoted this afternoon. The effect of doing otherwise than giving the same rates of pay to men employed on the same work would be to spoil, to destroy, the prospect of success of the scheme for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is asking to vote this money.
Therefore, I say, that while we ought to vote this money to-night, I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will take into consideration the arguments which have been advanced with so much force by hon. Members above the Gangway, if this scheme is to be a success. I believe that in voting for this scheme I am carrying out what are the wishes of the people of Scotland as a whole. I am quite certain that they want these houses, but they also want fair play as between both sides. If there is reason to suppose, on the one hand, that the building trade unions are using their monopoly powers to force up the rates and refusing to allow other men to come in to help the building of the houses; and if, on the other hand, the employers are using the necessities of the people of Scotland to obtain advantageous terms in carrying out their contracts, the people of Scotland will see that fair play is done, that these houses are built, and that fair wages are paid to every man employed in the work. The public will condemn whichever party it is that is trying to make profit out of this particular business.
There are one or two points about which I asked some questions when this scheme was originally announced in this House, some of which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in regard to the qualifications of the directors and so forth. There is one of these points which has not been mentioned to-day—perhaps it w-as by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie)—as to the rents to be paid. Are these rents going to be economic rents? Are they going to be rents sufficient to cover the whole cost of the scheme? If not, if there is going to be a loss on these houses, who is going to bear the loss?
Is it going to fall upon the rates, or is it to come out of the Treasury? Presumably it cannot fall upon the company, because the company has no money except that which is provided by the Government. The company is a sort of capitalistic fig-leaf trying to disguise from the people of the country that this is an essay in Socialism.
There is one other point. I do feel that this scheme is acceptable to the people of Scotland as some solution of the problem, but the problem itself is far bigger than can be tackled by the building of 2,000 steel houses. We do, however, appreciate the motives behind, and the sincerity of the words that have fallen from the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Scotland. We feel that having put their hands to the plough they are committed to a serious endeavour to solve the housing problem in Scotland. We feel we ought to support them, and we wish them God-speed. After all, however, the tackling of this problem will need far more than 2,000 houses. I would add also one very important proviso. Scotland has need for housing schemes in the rural districts, which are not touched by this particular scheme. As was pointed out in 1917 by the Commission, the housing conditions of the people in rural districts are bad, and are responsible for forcing people into the towns, and, therefore, adding to the congestion and demand made upon the available housing there. Anything done to relieve the rural situation would not only react upon the rural areas but also inure to the benefit of the town situation. Therefore, I would, in supporting this Vote to-night, respectfully ask the Secretary of State to give us some assurance that he is really seriously considering the housing problem in its rural aspect; give us some definite assurance that this question is going to be seriously tackled. I should also ask him to give fair-play to the workers employed in these schemes.

Mr. WHEATLEY: In rising to express my views, I must confess that I do so with a certain degree of anxiety. The atmosphere that has been created by the friendly speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and the tone that has characterised discussion throughout, makes me tremble lest any incautious word of mine should disturb the harmony that has pre-
valid. I can only promise to do my best to see the discussion through in the spirit that exists at the present moment. We have had, if I may say so respectfully, very little reply from Members on the Government side of the House to the excellent case in regard to wages and conditions that was presented first by the Leader of the Opposition, and, secondly, in an eminently capable manner by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston).
One of the points that was raised, and with which I should like to deal, was the question put by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). He put a question to us direct as to whether the figure of 1s. 2d. that has been mentioned in the Debate was not the result of collective bargaining. The point he was making was this: He said the Leader of the Opposition has only asked for collective bargaining and the terms that will be obtained by collective bargaining. He says Lord Weir is prepared to pay the figure of 1s. 2d. for the erection of these houses. If all the Opposition ask for is the figure produced by collective bargaining, is it not a fact that this 1s. 2d. is the product of bargaining between the employers and the workers in the engineering industry? I think that is a fair summary of the point made by the hon. Member. My reply to that is this: It is quite true that the 1s. 2d. per hour is the result of collective bargaining, but collective bargaining for work in the engineering industry. There is no connection whatever between the engineering industry and the erecting of Weir houses. The only connection between the two is Lord Weir. If I might put it another way, just to show the absurdity of the contention, let me remind hon. Members that Lord Weir is connected with another industry of national importance, that is the growing of beet. Suppose that the advocates of the claims of the workers in the beet industry were to come to this House and say: "We want the engineering rates in the beet industry because Lord Weir is an employer; we want the wages and conditions of engineering in the beet industry merely because they are rates and conditions obtained by collective bargaining in the engineering industry." I put it to hon. Members that the reason Lord Weir is paying the engineering wages and observing the engineering conditions is that the engineers work for lower wages and are subjected to worse con-
ditions than the workers in the ordinary building industry.
7.0 P.M.
There is another point, and that is that there is no dispute between rival trade unions in this case. One hon. Member threw out the suggestion, if he did not make the direct assertion, that this was a dispute between the engineering unions and the Federation of Building Operatives, and that it was by no means the business of this House to determine disputes between rival trade unions. The Labour party did not rush into this controversy without having examined it in the most minute detail. Before the House rose for the Vacation last year the Labour party appointed a Committee to go into this very question, and to ascertain exactly the position. The Committee applied to the engineering union and invited them to meet the Committee, and explain how far they have any claim in determining the wages and conditions in the erection of these houses. Here is the letter which was received from the general secretary of the engineering union:
Your letter of the 11th June has been considered by my executive council. In reply thereto, I am directed to state that we have no information that any of our members have been engaged in the assembly of parts of Weir houses. In view of which, my council have not had under consideration the rates of wages to be paid in connection with that work.
In other words, if engineers are employed on this work, they are not employed because they are engineers—because there is no engineering at all in connection with the work—but just as tinkers or tailors or any other class of workman would be employed, in the erection of these houses. That, I think, disposes of the suggestion that because 1s. 2d. for skilled workers and 10¼d. for unskilled workers obtain in the engineering industry and have been acquiesced in—if they have been acquiesced in—therefore we should accept that as applying to the conditions in the building of houses.
I do not want, for it is unnecessary, to enter any further into the details of the claims which have been made on behalf of the building trade operatives in regard to this dispute. I want to devote the time which I shall occupy rather in making an appeal to the Government on quite other, and I hope, much higher, grounds. I am opposed to this policy
very strongly, because it is a complete reversal of the present national policy, the present Government policy, with regard to house building. May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government whom he represents to remember that while we are dealing here with 2,000 houses, we require at least 200,000 houses in Scotland, and not to lose sight of the magnitude of the problem and the difficulties which confront us, when we are dealing with a particular question which may have an important bearing on the solution of that problem.
I cannot subscribe to the idea that these steel houses are likely to be a substitute for the kind of house in which we live today. I do not believe that they are anything more than costly decanting vessels When I was at the Ministry of Health I agreed to the erection of these houses. Had I remained at the Ministry of Health, I would have used my influence to have a certain number of these houses erected. I suppose I need hardly put in this claim, that if they had been erected under my auspices, the work would have had to be done according to the wages and conditions prevailing in the building industry. We never contemplated anything else. Indeed, I go further, and claim that when I was at the Ministry of Health I could have bought these houses cheaper than the Government are buying them to-day. At that time, when the price was under consideration, it was £300. I do not think I am betraying a confidence when I say that although Lord Weir told me that the initial price would be £360, within six months, or presumably when he had been given a sufficiently large order to allow the principles of mass production to operate in the reduction of costs, he would be able to supply the houses at £300 each, or less.
I said that I did not want to enter into discussion of the quality of these houses any more than was absolutely necessary to make my point on the broader question of national policy. If, to begin with, these houses were as good or as cheap as brick houses—I do not claim to have any technical knowledge that would make me a judge on the point of durability, but it may be that if these houses were as good and as cheap as other houses—we might take up the position that we have now finished with the ordinary building industry and can scrap
our bricklayers, plasterers and joiners, and others; we can crack our fingers at them and defy them and take up a hostile attitude to them and crush them into subjection. But may I put this, particularly to my fellow Scottish Members.? If we have—and I do not think it will be disputed—the need for 200,000 houses in Scotland, and we must depend on the ordinary building industry to supply them, is it not worth while pausing to consider whether you should introduce an injurious atmosphere into that building industry upon which you must rely for a solution of a problem which is certainly, as the Secretary of State for Scotland put it, of the greatest possible social magnitude?
No authority, so far as I know, has claimed that these houses are as good as ordinary brick or stone houses. I have here a report submitted to the Corporation of Glasgow—not by Labour members, because we are not looking at this from the party point of view at all. I think I was one of the earliest to rise from this House and plead with all parties to take the housing problem out of the arena of party politics and to urge that we should apply our capacities nationally to the question of raising our people from the slums in which they are submerged and put them into a standard of housing that would be creditable to the country of which we are the public representatives. I do not depart to-night by one single step from the view that was behind the appeal I made to this House in that speech at least two years ago. The Director of Housing of the Glasgow Corporation has reported to the corporation that in his opinion the durability of a Weir house it not more than 30 years in all. I have the minutes of the corporation with me if anyone should dispute them, but I put it to you, as business people, that there are other considerations which would enable us to arrive at a conclusion, although, as has been truly said, you cannot give an absolutely accurate judgment until you have had some years of experience behind you in the occupancy of these houses.
We know what happens in the ordinary affairs of life. If a new thing is really good, it goes first to the rich. It is only to the poor that margarine is better than butter. If a thing is really good, it
goes first to the rich. I put it to you, secondly, that if a proposition is sound you have no difficulty in finding the necessary capital for investment in the ownership of that commodity. Is it not a remarkable thing that no one has bought a steel house to live in, that no capitalist has taken it up as a subject of investment, and that no lawyer, so far as I know, has advised a client that on security of the building alone he should advance money for 30 years. T say that sound business minds do not take the view that these are houses equal in quality and in durability to the houses in which money is invested to-day. I think it is also necessary that we should take into consideration I how these houses compare in the cost with the ordinary brick and stone horses. I submit to all parties in the Hoi se that but for the extraordinarily high cost of building to-day this class of building would not have a look in.
Compare these houses with the houses produced at the extraordiarily high cost with which we are now familiar, and they have been so compared by the County Council of Lanark. That county council has made a comparison between the rents that require to be charged for these houses and the rents to be charged for houses of similar size made of brick and produced at present prices. They tell us that you require a rent of £3 11s. 10d. more for the steel house than is required for the brick house. I have seen a statement made out for the Corporation of Glasgow. After all, the fundamental appeal behind these houses is that you are going to take people out of the slums. Pictures have been painted of the conditions in which people live to-day, and we have been appealed to to recognise that any kind of house would be better than slums. We, on this side, agree with that, but do not let us lose sight of the facts of the situation.
The Corporation of Glasgow, with the characteristic caution of Scotsmen, have looked at the financial side of it, and the estimate of their officials is that the inclusive rent and rates of these houses in the City of Glasgow will be £32 15s. a year. I put it to you—and some of you are employers of labour—that if you are going to double the rents being paid by the poor, that is going to have a very great influence on the wages that will
be required to be paid in the employment of these poor people, who are not being paid anything like what would allow them to pay £32 15s. to-day. If these houses are to be let at competitive rents, which I understand is the policy of the Government, then I suppose that in this area they will go to the people who are comparatively wealthy, and, after having been occupied for three or four years and having deteriorated, then, and only then, will they be available at much reduced rents—and at high Government losses—for the poor people for whom this appeal is made.
I make that point for this reason, that, as I said at the beginning, you are entering here on quite a new policy—on a destructive policy—in regard to the provisions of houses. The Prime Minister, in recent years, has made many eloquent appeals to us to try to create, and maintain, harmony between employers and workmen in this country. Many of us in all parts of the House have been moved by his appeals. I want to claim this for myself, that I was one of the first Ministers entrusted with the administration of the affairs of this country who made a serious, and to a large extent successful, attempt to give practical effect to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. When I went to the Ministry of Health I found the building industry in chaos. I found it had been depleted of its personnel throught the insecurity of employment and insecurity for decent working conditions.
There was a shortage of labour, particularly of skilled labour. I spent six months working harder, probably, than I have ever worked in my life to produce harmony and efficiency in the building industry. I brought together the employers and the employés, and I appealed to them, in the name of the nation, to co-operate harmoniously in the production of houses. I said to the building operatives "There is undoubtedly a shortage of building trade labour. I want you to agree to a policy of augmentation, a policy by which, through so many apprentices being accepted for so many journeymen we shall within a very short time have a larger fund of skilled labour, and I want you to agree to semi-skilled workers being brought into the industry." The building trade operatives responded in a
manner which ought to get for them to-night the consideration of hon. Members on the other side of the House. I brought the employers and the workers together, and I said "It is on you that the nation must depend for houses, and I want co-operation between you as employers and employés."
I went ever further than that. I went to the manufacturers of building materials, and I said: "I recognise, as a person with some business knowledge, that the output of materials will always approximate to the demand for those materials. I recognise that, owing to the insecurity of the demand in the past, you have been afraid to put capital into the manufacture of building materials, but now I want you to come to the nation's assistance and put fresh capital in to give us additional materials and enable the building operatives and contractors to give us the necessary additional houses." The remarkable thing about it is this, that I think I can claim that I, a revolutionary Socialist, had the confidence of manufacturers, contractors and operatives to an extent unparalleled in the administration of the housing affairs of this country.
What has been the result of the policy? Let me quote to you, not a claim of mine, but an admission made by my successor as to the result of that policy within 12 months of its inception. In' 1925, 159,000 houses were erected in this country. When I was talking about 60,000 or 70,000 houses when piloting my Measure through this House, people said, "It is a dream. You will never get the building industry to give us that number of houses." But in this first year the building industry gave us a greater number of houses in England and Wales than was promised by the most optimistic representative of the industry during the negotiations with the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman went further. He gives us a larger amount of credit for the work we did, and for those acknowledgments I thank him. Speaking in this House, on 18th December last, he said:
We are moving faster now in this respect than at any other time in our history. … We have been extraordinarily successful in mobilising the forces of private enterprise. They are still acting like a rolling snowball, gathering up all the time more material and more labour. … Anything which shook the confidence of the
industry in continued progress would, I think, be a great misfortune at this juncture; and my hopes will be that we may continue to maintain that confidence and increase the resources of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1925; cols. 1871–77, Vol. 189.]
I say "Amen" to the hopes and prayers of the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of that statement and that appeal I ask the House to consider the step taken to-night. The happy result that we are rejoicing over here is due to the harmony and the confidence created in the building industry by the assurance that they were going to get honourable treatment from the representatives of the people of this country. As I said at the outset, here is a complete reversal of that policy. We are setting out now to reduce the standard of living in this essential industry.
I submit that the building industry is the most essential industry of the nation. We can get our food from foreigners, we can get our ships and our coal from abroad, but we depend for housing accommodation on the skill and capacity of the people of our own country. If that be admitted, and I do not think anyone will seriously dispute it, then I put it to the representatives of the Government that we ought to see that our most essential national industry is one that will attract the best services in the nation. I want us to have a building industry into which parents can send their boys in the confidence that they will get a decent standard of living, confident that they will obtain in that industry scope for the exercise of their talents in craftsmanship and in the production of beautiful work. I want them to think of the building industry as something that is the artist of the nation, something into which we should put our best. I want this House to depart from the idea that it is good, sound, national policy to embitter that industry, to disintegrate that industry, to drive from that industry to less essential fields of industry the youth of the country who are in search of a decent standard of living.
If that appeal be accepted in the spirit in which it is made to the Government to-night, I am sure they will pause twice before embarking on a struggle with this important industry on behalf of one man who is not essential in the production of houses. If Lord Weir were the only
person who could add to our output of houses, I would say there might be a semblance of a case; but Lord Weir is by no means the most qualified person to produce the houses which we all desire to see produced. Take the announcement that has been made about the new company he has formed, a company with a nominal capital of £60,000. I have heard it stated publicly that most of the £60,000 has been already expended; but I put it to you people: What is the use of talking about national mass production with a capital of £60,000? The whole thing is petty and insignificant in the light of modern methods of mass production.
I have within the last half-hour had a statement put into my hands, which I understand is officially supported, that Sir William Beardmore and Co., Ltd., the firm with which the Duke of Atholl is associated, have a plant capable of producing 2,500 of these houses per annum. Why should we penalise the Duke of Atholl, who can produce two, three, four or five times the number of houses that Lord Weir can produce, when in showing that partisanship to Lord Weir we are going to produce chaos, embitterment and disintegration among the building operatives and employers of this country? A remark was made in the course of the discussion which I think was not fully appreciated on the other side of the House. I submit that the Conservative party should be the protectors of a high standard of wages and a high standard of conditions. If hon. Members opposite have any faith in their fundamental principles, that is the policy for which they should stand. I could understand the people who believe in free competition as a means of fixing wages and prices standing up for getting the houses in the cheapest markets and damning the consequences! If hon. Members opposite are Protectionists, if they appeal to the nation to protect them against the injurious influence of competition from abroad because the imported goods are the product of comparatively sweated labour—if they ask for protection on that ground, how can they deny these building operatives protection against the foreigner who is coming into their industry to reduce the standard of living?

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for HEALTH, SCOTLAND (Captain Elliot): I feel I am in somewhat
of a difficulty in entering into this battle of giants which is taking place to-night upon this vexed question, and I ask protection from you, Sir, and the sympathy of the House, for a comparatively humble Member of the Government like myself who is facing such redoubtable bruisers as the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health. I would not dare to deal with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) were it not for the great and overpowering assistance I have received from him during the course of his own speech. His arguments seemed to me very powerful, but mutually contradictory. He said, "These houses are for the poor, for the lowest of the low. Why should our people be forced into them?" And then he said, "These houses are going to be let at rents so high that none of our people will be able to get into them, only the wealthy will be able to get into them." Further, he said, "These houses are too dear; they will not be sufficiently cheap until they are produced by the assistance of mass production." [An HON. MEMBER: "Debating society points!"] The hon. Member opposite does not seem to realise that Parliament is a debating society, that we are here to meet each other's arguments, and not simply to shout down our opponents, as is done by unruly Members in one part of the House or another.
Let me come to one of the more particular points which the right hon. Gentleman made. He spoke of his dealings with the building industry, and of the remarkable progress made, of the overwhelming rate of production of houses in this country, claiming it as a result of his policy. It is because of that claim that we are bringing forward this Estimate. It is because of the progress of housing in England that we in Scotland say, "We demand to bring our quota of houses up to some connection with the total which is being achieved in England." He spoke of an output of 125,000 houses, and quoted the testimony of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health as to the more rapid progress being made in housing in England and Wales. Let us come to a place we both know better than we know any part of England and Wales.
Let us take the figures for that same year in the city of Glasgow—not the figures of houses which it is alleged have been discouraged by the Board of Health, but the figures of the houses which were actually under construction when the year began, and let us see how many of them were finished at the end of the year. It has been said that we have been doing our best to discourage the building of houses in order to create a favourable atmosphere for the Weir scheme. I will take first the houses which had been commenced. Under the 1923 Act at the beginning of last year there were 734 houses under construction at Knights-wood, and at the end of the year there had been only 137 of that number completed. Of the 200 which were under construction at Merryflats only 104 were completed by the end of the year. In connection with the Shawlands scheme 150 houses were under construction, and by the end of the year not a single one had been completed. At Scotstoun 84 were under construction, and not one had been completed by the end of the year.
Under the Housing Act, 1924, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), the number under construction at West Craigton was 46, and by the end of the year not a single one had been completed. In the slum parishes at Hamilton Hill 380 were under construction at the beginning of the year, and not a single one had been completed by the end of the year. At Scotstoun 96 houses were under construction and not one was completed; and at Whitefield Road 114 were under construction and only 36 were completed. That is our explanation, and our excuse for this Vote, and it is not because of Lord Weir or the Duke of Atholl or any other Noble Lord or eminent gentleman that we come forward with this Estimate, but solely because of those figures which I have just read out to the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: What was the reason for the non-completion?

Captain ELLIOT: Surely it is a matter alike for the workers and the contractors who had contracted to deliver the goods.

Mr. MACLEAN: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman produces figures to clinch an argument, he ought to give the reasons for those figures.

Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. Member cannot read the reasons written on the face of those figures, he will not be convinced by anything I can say on the subject. That is the position with which we are faced. We are faced with this great delay, and we are not getting delivery of the goods. We have authorised this year the biggest building programme ever authorised in Scotland. There are 13,500 brick houses actually under construction, and we have authorised 17,000. In this way we have done more by deeds to prove our friendly attitude towards the building trades than any words could do coming from right hon. Gentlemen sitting on these benches. We claim that we are just as much interested in harmonious relations with the building trade as any other person in this House can be, and more than that, we have proved our friendship by the tremendous programme authorised to be carried out this year in Scotland. We say that when we are faced with figures like those in regard to the non-delivery of the goods, it is our duty to make use of any ancillary method to make sure we get the door keys at the end of the year in order that the poor tenants may move into the houses. I am dealing with the arguments advanced with great eloquence and great justice by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston at the end of his speech.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent my argument. The argument I used was not that they should not introduce alternative methods if housebuilding but that you should not use the introduction of these alternative methods to destroy the efficiency of the major producers of houses.

Captain ELLIOT: That is the next step in the argument. I may take it from that statement that now we are all agreed in this House that we are justified in turning to alternative methods. The hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. T. Henderson) delivered a most impassioned harangue, in which he declared that Weir houses were bad houses, and should not be introduced at all. I will now start from the point that hon. Members opposite agree now that steel houses are good houses, and I will leave them to deal with those hon. Members who differ with them on that point, and although we on this side may
not be able to convince them, perhaps it will be possible for them to be convinced by the peaceful persuasion of members of their own party. I now come to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who brought forward a case which we have got to meet, and which I think we are able to meet. The right hon. Gentleman said we had got the Bradbury Report and the Fair Wages Clause, and he further said that he accepted the Bradbury Report and stood by the Fair Wages Clause. That is a very important admission, because now we have the right hon. Gentleman committing his party officially, and for the first time, to the acceptance of the Bradbury Report.

Mr. MacDONALD: Not for the first time.

Captain ELLIOT: Then I will say that he is reinforcing his repeated declaration. I will now deal with the points arising out of that. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We admit that the Weir operations are a new set of operations, but we say that when the wages and conditions are settled they must be done by collective bargaining." I am speaking under a certain amount of difficulty, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from the declarations made by the Secretary of State for Scotland at the beginning of this Debate, he has not ceased since the Vote was carried unanimously by the Committee of this House to fulfil what he conceived to be the desire of the House, namely, to explore all the ways by which a settlement could be reached by agreement between the parties. As we know, the representatives of the building operatives desired to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he met them, and the meeting was adjourned over the weekend. After that my right hon. Friend met them again, and at their request agreed to meet them again on Tuesday this week, and he did so.
All I can say is that, although these conversations have not yet resulted in a definite agreement, I see no reason why it should be impossible to arrive at an agreed conclusion. Nobody knows better than right hon. Gentlemen opposite how delicate negotiations may be ruined by the clumsy interference of some novice like myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are too modest."] Thai is an English attribute. This is the point. While
these conversations are proceeding do not let us raise an atmosphere of hostility and recrimination now. I do not think I am going outside the recollection of the House in saying that one of the difficulties with which we are faced is that the atmosphere has grown more acrimonious instead of less as this Debate has gone on. We have been told that this is more a question of the unskilled man, but that is a subject for negotiation. If we are going to say that the assembly and construction of these houses is a craftsman's job involving craftsman's skill, and involving the introduction of craftsman's wages, then we come to a difficulty, and it is very hard to see how we can get over it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if it is not the case that the Building Trades Federation have never claimed that steel erection WOFK is part of their craft, and therefore that should be regarded as quite outside the negotiations?

Captain ELLIOT: Let me quote from the document which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has accepted, and which has been reinforced in speeches made by Members of the Labour party. In the Report by a Court of Inquiry concerning steel houses, on page 18, paragraph 55, there appears the following statement:
With regard to the stage of erection on the site, it is necessary to compare the process of erecting an ordinary house with the process of erecting the Weir house. The erection of the Weir house consists of the assembly of a number of standardised parts, carefully prepared in advance in such a way that they will fit together without adjustment, and without requiring the skill of specialised craftsmen. The bulk of the work can be done by men with no previous specialised skill. The same man may be employed at one moment on the erection of the wall sections, at another moment on placing into position the pipes or the wires for the lighting.
The representative of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives gave to us in his evidence a vivid description of the method of building the ordinary brick house, a complicated process involving the interlocking employment at different stages of different specialised skilled craftsmen and their mates. The adherence to the diversified forms of skill required to handle and to manipulate the various forms of more or less 'raw' material which are used in ordinary house building has led to the employment of these various classes. The process as described appears to us to be essentially different from that involved in the assembly of the Weir house. Just as in the development of many forms of
mechanical engineering, the standardisation of house-parts by Messrs. Weir has reached the stage at which all that is required for the erection of the house is the assembly of standardised parts, prepared by mass production methods in the factory, of a character so simplified that there is no longer need to call for the skill of the craftsman.
That is the Report signed by Mr. Cramp, and it is the Report accepted five minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition in the name of his party as a whole. On that we do say we are entitled to claim, as regards the operations in the assembly of the house, that we think we can get over the difficulty about the skilled man and the rate paid to unskilled labour—the question which the right hon. Gentleman raised about house No. 70 being done at a different rate of wages from house No. 71. If we can get over that, will he back us in the application of paragraph 55 to the operations in which the assembling of the house are of a nature which do not involve specialised skilled craftsmanship, and, therefore, do not necessarily involve the pay which inevitably and properly attaches to the craftsman in the exercise of his skill?

Mr. MacDONALD: The application of the paragraph by whom? Who is going to apply it? Who is going to agree to the application?

Captain ELLIOT: We hope that all parties will agree, and we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in bringing pressure to bear upon the people involved who are at present objecting.

Mr. MacDONALD: In accepting the Bradbury Report, I am not accepting all but one paragraph, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that that paragraph must be applied through the trade unions concerned.

Captain ELLIOT: The conditions under which the paragraph must be applied are laid down in paragraph 58, which says:
The position of the workmen employed can, in our opinion, be fully safeguarded by their own trade unions, in consultation on matters in which the interests of the building trade proper appear to be affected with the building trade unions.
I ask the House what else is the process I have described but that? Since the day on which this Vote was passed, we have been in consultation with the building trade unions. We have only parted from them this morning, when we were sitting
in conference and going over and discussing these things, and seeing where adjustment might be a good thing and where it might be necessary. Those conversations have not finished yet. What right has the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, to say that we are not applying that paragraph, when we have only just finished one conversation with those representatives, and we see no reason why those conversations should not continue?

Mr. MacDONALD: May I put a straight, definite question? Are the Government prepared to agree with that trade union about the prices that are to be paid under the description of that paragraph? That is the whole point.

Captain ELLIOT: Surely, to agree, but we must take the document which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, and which says:
In consultation on matters in which the interests of the building trade proper appear to be affected.
Everyone knows what happens when you are consulting anyone. We all know the story of the man who went to ask his doctor—a member of my own trade union—for his opinion. As he went out, the doctor said, "That will be five guineas, please." "Oh," he asked, "What is that for?" "For my advice," replied the doctor. "Oh," he said, "but I am not taking your advice." At the moment we are in conversation with the various interests concerned. We are following out, not only in the letter but in the spirit, the recommendation given in the paragraph. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are talking about it!"] If the hon. Member knows any way of settling trade union questions other than by talking about them—[Interruption,] it seems to me that the hon. Member's ideas of agreement must be different from those of anyone else. We are engaged at this moment in working out these questions according to the recommendation of the Bradbury Report, and we say quite definitely that we are entitled, when we come into consultation with the interests concerned, that they in their turn should realise what has been stated in paragraph 55, namely, that there are a very large number of operations which have been
standardised and simplified up to a point at which the skill of the skilled craftsman is not drawn upon.

Mr. MacDONALD: I understand the building trades have agreed to that.

Captain ELLIOT: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that they have agreed—

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that in these conversations to which he has made reference the building trade representatives have admitted that.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not wish to broach any conversations which we have had,-because they have been conducted in confidence [An HON. MEMBER: "Why refer to them?"] I did not refer to them. On these matters an admission in principle is not the same thing as a definite, detailed agreement, and it is the fact that we have not yet arrived at a definite, detailed agreement that I am putting before the House as a reason why we should not have any atmosphere of recrimination, and why we should let this Vote go, so that we may get on with the discussions.
The only other point that has not been dealt with is the question of the competing firms. I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) dealt with that more thoroughly than any other hon. Member who has spoken, especially from the other-side. But, again, I regret to say, he does not seem to me to be fully informed of the facts of the situation. He says that the Duke of Atholl is limited to 10 per cent. of building trade labour. That, as we all know, has been a condition of all the alternative methods, right from the time when the Prime Minister made his first declaration on the subject at Glasgow, and, as he said, it is for a very-simple reason. Building trade labour has only completed 270 houses out of 1,800, so that it certainly seems to us that the machine is running under a greater load than it can properly deal with. The hon. Member for Dundee, however, says that the Duke cannot fulfil this condition unless he is allowed to use shipyard carpenters, shipyard plumbers, and so on. More than two months ago, however, we came to an agreement with the firm on that subject and agreed to let them use shipyard carpenters, shipyard plumbers,
and shipyard painters, and that not one of those persons should be counted into the 10 per cent. when we were making up our accounts at the end of the year. That seems to me to indicate that the information which the hon. Gentleman has is not. perhaps, so full as he imagines it to be.
Again, he pointed out that the operations were the work of skilled craftsmen. He said that the laying of a floor is the work of a skilled craftsman, that the hanging of doors is the work of skilled craftsmen, and he went over the various operations one by one. Again I would refer him to paragraph 55 on page 18 of the Bradbury Report, which he has accepted. He will see that the very arguments which he went on to use prove the case up to the hilt.
In reference to the Atholl firm, the hon. Member quoted building trade sub-contractors one after another. He brought up the case of Mr. Fulton, a subcontractor, Mr. Brownlie, and numerous other sub-contractors who were engaged in carrying out special work on the Atholl house. That is exactly the case for the differentiation. If you have a man who is employing skilled craftsmen at skilled craftsmen's work, he has to pay skilled craftsmen's wages. If you have the Atholl firm employing, as it admittedly does employ, according to the evidence adduced by the hon. Gentleman himself, sub-contractors with skilled building operatives, they would not be observing the Fair Wages Clause unless they paid fair wages for the operations which they were carrying out. But we claim that in paragraph 55 it is made clear that these skilled operations do not form part of the assembly of the Weir house. On that paragraph we stand, and, since the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Report, we claim the right to the unanimous support of the Whole House, including the party opposite.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does that apply to the foundations?

Captain ELLIOT: Let us take the question of the foundations. Here, again, the hon. Member seems to be a little wide of the facts. He said that there would be no difficulty about the foundations if the full building trade rate of wages and building trade conditions were given. Why did we ask Messrs. Weir to move in the matter of the
foundations at all? If the hon. Member will look at any of the records on this subject, he will find that that came about because, in the case of the Glasgow site, which was to be prepared by building trade labourers working under building trade conditions and receiving the build-trade rate of wages, the workers whom it was proposed to employ upon that site refused to prepare the foundations because it was suggested that Weir houses were subsequently to be erected on the work they had done.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the labourers engaged on the foundations of the Weir house are paid 10½d. an hour, while those engaged on the foundations of the Atholl house are paid 1s. 3¼d.? That is a straight question.

Captain ELLIOT: Is it, or is it not, the case that the labourers who were to be engaged at the building trade rate of 1s. 3¼d. struck work, and refused to make the foundations because the houses were to be Weir houses? [Interruption.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a Scottish way of doing it—answering one question with another. It is very clever.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite think it is very clever when I give the facts dealing with any particular phase of the question under discussion. Let us proceed to the further point which the hon. Member suggested. Is it or is it not the fact, he asks, that there has been a rate of 10½d. paid by Messrs. Weir for making foundations? Again, that is not a fact; the rate that is being paid by Messrs. Weir is 1s.

Mr. JOHNSTON: No!

Captain ELLIOT: That is a considerable difference. But, if we can cross that fence, if we can get over that difficulty, will the hon. Member then co-operate with us in solving the other problems on the question whether or not there is-craftsmen's work in the assembling and putting together of the Weir house?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me a straight question, I will give him what he has not given me—a straight answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is this: For operations which the building trade em-
ployers, the building trade employés, and all the competitors of Lord Weir, agree should be building operations, the building trade rates of wages should be paid.

Captain ELLIOT: If that is the hon. Member's definition of a straight answer, it seems to me that he would have difficulty in getting in behind a corkscrew. On the broad, general question at issue, it seems to me that we are much nearer a solution than would appear on the face of the Debate we have had this afternoon.

Mr. MacDONALD: You are not helping.

8.0 P.M.

Captain ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman says we are not helping. Let us see how we are not helping. We have in the Bradbury Report an admission that craft skill is not an essential part of the assembling of the Weir house. I say that if we get that accepted, then the way is open for negotiations on the whole of the questions at issue. The questions at issue are not insoluble. Wider bridges have been built before, and there is no reason why we should not be able to come to an agreement in the case in dispute. We have had the most conciliatory declaration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scot-

land. He has declared himself ready at any moment to proceed with these conversations.

We have gone three-fourths of the way towards solving the problem. One of the main difficulties—the difficulty of the unskilled labourer's wage—is exactly one of the questions upon which, it seems to me, it would be most easy to negotiate. If, with all these cards in our hands, we, as a whole, cannot come to a solution of this question, then it seems to me it will be a reproach to the collective statesmanship of the House of Commons. If we find ourselves incapable of making use of this opportunity which is given us, then we shall have done a very bad day's work for the people of Scotland. I finish my speech, as I finished on the last occasion, in claiming that this is a Measure sincerely devised for the furthering of housing in Scotland, and that, however one likes to put it, to delay that and to refuse the facilities asked for by the Government on the present Vote is a responsibility which I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to weigh twice and three times before they take it upon their shoulders.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 124.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[8.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bennett, A. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Berry, Sir George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Bethel, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chapman, Sir S.
Elveden, Viscount


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
England, Colonel A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Blundell, F. N.
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G K.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowater. Sir T. Vansittart
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fenby, T. D.


Brass, Captain W.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Fermoy, Lord


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cooper, A. Duff
Fielden, E. B.


Briant, Frank
Cope, Major William
Ford, Sir P. J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Forrest, W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loder, J. de V.
Salmon, Major I.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gates, Percy.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gee, Captain R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Grace, John
MacIntyre, Ian
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
McLean, Major A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gretton, Colonel John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grotrian, H. Brent.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon Ronald John
Skelton, A. N.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Harland, A.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hartington, Marquess of
Meyer, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tinne, J. A.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murchison, C. K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hills, Major John Waller
Neville, R. J.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waddington, R.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Homan, C. W. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watts, Dr. T.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Owen, Major G.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wiggins, William Martin


Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Preston, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Price. Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jacob, A. E.
Radford, E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Raine, W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wise. Sir Fredric


Kennedy, A. R (Preston)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Withers, John James


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Wolmer, Viscount


Kindersley. Major Guy M.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hythe)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)
Wragg, Herbert


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner, Major L.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.



Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell. Alexander West-(Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rye, F. G.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dunnico, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape. Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Amnion, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Clowes, S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)-


Baker, Walter
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)


Barnes, A.
Connolly, M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Broad, F. A.
Dalton, Hugh
Groves. T.


Bromfield, William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Bromley. J.
Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.
Hardie, George D.




Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, T. W.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Ponsonby, Arthur
Townend, A. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.
Varley, Frank B.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rose, Frank H.
Warne, G. H.


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John
Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Lansbury, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson. John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, W.


Lee, F.
Shiels. Dr. Drummond
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Livingstone, A. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lunn, William
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor, Walter


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wright, W.


Mackinder, W
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry



MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


March, S.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)



Maxton, James
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [24th February].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

CLASS V.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants-in-Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and the Free Passage Scheme for Ex-Service Men and Women."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £116,720, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Payments in respect of Compensation for Personal Injuries, and for use of, or malicious Damage to, Property, including advances on account of prospective awards of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, or under the Damage to Property (Com-
pensation) Act of the Irish Free State or on the security of stock issued under that Act; ex-gratia Grants; Grants to Refugees for the Relief of. Distress; and advances in respect of Rent and other sums payable under the Land Act, 1923, of the Irish Free State."

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON AND NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. CLYNES: I wish to ask you, Sir, a question on a point of procedure. I think it is generally felt that it would be to the convenience of the House to have one Debate on these two Bills, taking two Divisions, if need be, later on. They are similar in character, and I hope you will be able to announce that that course will be taken.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It has already been suggested to me that, as the subject matter of the two Bills is the same, it would be for the
convenience of the House if they could be debated together, without prejudice of course, to separate Divisions being taken. If that course commends itself generally to the House, I should have no objection to allowing it.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: No suggestion of that kind has been made to the promoters, and I think it would be most inconvenient. The circumstances of the London and North Eastern Company and of the Southern Company are totally different. The considerations are by no means the same and, with the sole exception that the purpose of each Bill is to establish a superannuation fund for the staff, there is, as far as I know, no similarity between them at all. It would be very inconvenient that Bills differing in their details and only having a similar object should for that reason be discussed at the same time. It would be very inconvenient and somewhat of an injustice to the London and North Eastern Railway.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I had the impression that there was a consensus of opinion that this would be convenient. If I am misinformed as to that, of course I cannot force any such procedure upon the House. If it is felt by the parties on either side that this is not a convenient course, and that the cases in respect of the two Bills should be separately stated, of course either side, whether it is in favour or whether it opposes the Bill, has a right to a separate Debate.

Mr. J. JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite practically stated that he was representing the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I want to know whether he represents his constituents.

Mr. TOWNEND: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I hope the House will bear with me, particularly if I transgress any of its traditions arising out of the fact that this is the first time I have inflicted a speech on it. I had hoped that those responsible for the Bills would agree that they should be taken together. [Interruption.] I understand they are to be taken together. That being so, if I make reference to one Bill, it may be understood that the argument applies to both equally,
because the point of our objection applies to both. The crux of the whole position from our point of view is that these Bills fail to carry out what we believe to have been an understanding come to at a time when the Railways Bill was before the House and subsequent thereto. I know this may be challenged, but the challenge can very easily be met by those who were in the discussions that took place, and the interpretations of the understanding will be left to subsequent speakers.
These two Bills affect the interests of something like 45,000 railwaymen, who have contributed to the Superannuation Funds sums amounting to something like £8,000,000. The functioning of these Funds is a very important matter indeed. I want to bring the House back to the time when, prior to the Railways Bill, the Government had to consider the claims put up by the railway companies about 1919 or 1920 against the Government for commitments entered into during the time the railways were under the control of the Government, and the Colwyn Committee was appointed for the purpose of going into possible claims that could be made against the Government for what took place during that time. I believe it was submitted before that Committee, even at that time, that one of the claims might be something in respect to added financial responsibility in respect of the development of the Superannuation Funds during that time. I would remind the House of a statement made by the spokesman of the Government, Sir George Beharrell, who, on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, suggested that, arising out of the developments of the Railways Act, the Superannuation Funds should be grouped together. As a matter of fact, he visualised one national Railway Superannuation Fund, and the very least he anticipated was that each group that emerged from the Railways Act would have a co-ordinated fund when the time arrived.
Concurrent with that time there was brought about a standardisation of conditions of service and of the salaries and wages of the men in the railway companies. The superannuation funds, however, particularly concerned the salaried staffs. At that time I was a railway servant. I am a railway servant, and am paying into the superannuation fund
of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Therefore, the House will understand that from many points of view I am vitally concerned and interested in this matter. Under the Railways Bill, when the four groups were emerging, those who spoke on behalf of the staff desired, not only that the conditions and salaries should be standardised, but that the superannuation should also be standardised. We approached the Government of the day, and as a result consultations took place. It was then suggested that whilst our claim might be legitimate, the Railways Bill was a huge transaction, and' the superannuation question introduced many complexities. A Clause was thereupon introduced to the effect that whilst it was inconvenient it the time to deal with the matter, because it might overload the Bill, there should be a subsequent occasion when provisions should be made for dealing with the superannuation funds on the lines of consolidation within each of the groups. That interpretation is objected to from the other side of the House.
We find to-night that in these Bills there is no such proposition, and it is because of that error of commission or omission, so vital and so essential to the staffs of the London and North Eastern Railway and the Southern Railway, that objection is taken to these Bills. Despite the understanding arrived at, there has been no provision made in these Bills whereby the different funds that now operate within the London and North Eastern Group and in the Southern Group should be consolidated. It may be argued that that was not the correct interpretation, but may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that that was the interpretation of those who represented the staff, and it has been corroborated since that time. In the summer of 1924, hon. Members were bombarded with postcards, letters and telegrams in connection with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway superannuation fund. At that time there was submitted to this House what we believed to be the fructifying of the intention of those who, during the passage of the Railways Act, came to an understanding.
The London, Midland and Scottish fund has a direct bearing upon the subject before the House to-night. On that
occasion we had the London and North Western, the Midland, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Glasgow and South Western, and one or two smaller railway funds operating. The London, Midland and Scottish Group had been formed, and the contributors' committee men, of which I happened to be one—I have sat on a committee for something like 10 or 12 years; there were six committee men drawn from the staff and six from the company's side, generally speaking—were called into consultation with the officials of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and various schemes were considered. We had our ideas and they had their ideas. The discussions which then took place resulted in the scheme being agreed to. As a result of that mutual agreement, a mutually-agreed fund was submitted to this House, in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Superannuation Fund Bill. As a result of that, we find that Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway men, London and North Western men and Midland men, who sit side by side in the same office, will receive exactly the same standardized pension, just as they receive the same standardized salaries and the same standardized conditions of service.
The London and North Eastern Railway and the Southern Railway, in exactly the same way as the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, called together the contributors' committee men in an attempt to come to a mutual agreement with regard to the superannuation fund. At that time, the North Eastern, the Great Central, the Great Northern and the Great Eastern funds were functioning separately, while on the Southern Railway the London, Brighton and South Coast, the South Eastern, and the South Western funds were functioning separately.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a North Eastern Bill.

Mr. TOWNEND: The London and North Eastern Railway called the contributors committee-men together, meetings were arranged and certain progress was made. We who represented the Railway Clerks' Association, of which association I am a member of the executive committee, were of the opinion that we were going to reach the same degree of satisfaction as obtained in the case of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. All at once the negotiations were
broken off, and from that day to this as far as meeting for the purpose of endeavoring to arrive at an agreement is concerned no move has been made from the company's side. We have before us a Bill which refers only to the new entrants to the London and North Eastern Railway Company. That is to say, only those who have entered the service since 1923 are to become members of the new fund. It is a fund based upon a totally different basis from any of which we have had experience in the past. The result will be that men from the Great Central, the Great Northern, the Great Eastern, the North Eastern and the Scottish Companies, who sit in the same office, having been drawn from each of these originally different companies, will ultimately receive, despite the fact that their conditions and salaries are exactly the same, when they retire from the company's service, pensions that may vary from £108 to something like £180 per annum.
What we object to is that these old funds have not been consolidated in the same way that the London, Midland and Scottish superannuation fund has been consolidated. The understanding was that these funds would be consolidated and that every member would be placed on an equal footing, that the old funds of the different companies now forming the London and North Eastern Group would be wiped out, and that a new fund equally as satisfactory and equally as unified as the London, Midland and Scottish Fund would be established. That is the crux of the opposition to this Bill. While it might be argued that the benefits are not as good as the London, Midland and Scottish benefits, the main contention that we submit to the House is that we have this variation on the pensions question obtaining throughout the length and breadth of the London and North Eastern system, and the intense dissatisfaction which has been demonstrated through the post to-day, does not speak well for the conditions that obtain or for the industrial future of the railways. In view of the fact that this great public body, subject in no small degree to the control of this House, was a party to the understanding arrived at—an understanding that has materialized as far as the London, Midland and Scottish Railway is concerned—and in
view of the fact that this House is desirous of giving these men justice and equity, I appeal to the House to reject this Bill.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so on three grounds. First, because of the failure of the company to carry out a previously understood arrangement between the men and themselves. Secondly, because of their failure to negotiate on the basis of equity, after they had broken away from the previous arrangement. Thirdly, on the ground that it is going to leave constant room for irritation amongst men who are performing the same tasks under exactly similar conditions but with a change in their superannuation allowance. I know there are many Members who are desirous of speaking against both these Bills, who know the details much better than I do, and for that reason I simply formally second the Amendment for rejection.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am neither in the employment of any railway company nor am I beneficially a shareholder in any railway company in this country. I approach this question from the point of view of my duty as a Member of Parliament, and as representing a large body of constituents, many of whom are railway servants.
I put down my Amendment to reject this Bill with the intention of getting a discussion on the Floor of the House with regard to two points. In the first place, I desired to raise a question affecting the interests of the old pre-War superannuitants. Those who were Members of the House of Commons two years ago will remember that when the London Midland and Scottish Superannuation Bill came before it some of my hon. Friends and I adopted a similar course in the interests of the old superannuitants. In that Bill the super-annuitants had a locus, and they opposed it by petition. As a result of that opposition, and also as a result of the discussions which took place on the Floor of the House, the Committee made a special Report to the effect that, in their opinion, the company ought to do more for the old superannuitants. The company then came forward with an offer, and although, perhaps, no offer is entirely satisfactory, this offer was accepted with goodwill on both sides.
The position is not quite the same here. The superannuitants have no locus which gives them a right to petition against this particular Bill, and on their behalf I appeal to the House to give some expression to their claims for benevolent treatment by the company. I am not going into the hardships of old pensioners. I do not want to waste the time of the House on a matter which has been discussed over and over again, but in order to avoid a lengthy discussion later on, may I refer to the fact that I have put down on the Order Paper an Instruction to the Committee on this Bill to consider the case of these superannuitants. In regard to this company, and certainly with regard to the other company, it is not unsympathetic to the claims of the old pre-War superannuitants. It is merely a question of the amount they can afford to, or the amount they will, give. I shall be asking the House later on to support my Instruction to the Committee, and I must make it clear that one of the reasons why I put down an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill was to bring to the sympathetic attention of the House of Commons the claims of the old pre-War superannuitants of the London and North Eastern Railway Company in the hope that the company will treat them with the same amount of generosity as the old superannuitants were treated by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.
My other reason for putting down an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill is that I consider the Bill to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not think it is right, or likely to lead to the peaceful and amicable working of this great institution in the future, that you should have men working in the same positions and on the same lines at the same salaries and yet entitled to quite different rates of compensation on their retirement. And consider, moreover, there are objections to the new schemes by those who are not covered by the old superannuation schemes; although it is hardly a point to make now (as to what sums should be paid) as that is a matter which can be considered under later stages. But this Bill is very unsatisfactory in this one particular important respect, that it leaves men who are in the service of one employer, doing the same work at the same salary, in a totally different
footing in regard to their pensions, and it also makes a difference, for which there is no sufficient reason, between those who were in the employ of the company before a certain date, and who come under the old schemes, and those who came into the employ of the company later and who come under the scheme now proposed.
Those are my objections to the Bill, put shortly, which induced me to put down the Amendment for rejection. I have, however, to consider in the interests of the country as a whole—and it is a very vital interest at the present moment in the successful working of our railways—and in the best interests of those men for whom I have been speaking, who are directly concerned in this superannuation fund, whether the right course for the House to adopt is to turn down this Bill on Second Reading or rather to send it to a Committee and watch what may take place there. It must be remembered, in the interests of the men for whom I have been speaking, and for whom hon. Members before me have been speaking, what would be their position if this Bill were thrown out on Second Reading. The position then would be that those who are members of the existing superannuation funds would be members of schemes which are admitted by them to be insolvent, which is unsatisfactory, and the later entrants into the service would have no superannuation scheme whatever, in spite of the fact that deductions are being made from their salaries at the present time for the purpose of a superannuation scheme.
It would be very unsatisfactory if the thing were left in that position, and that will be admitted by everyone. But if a satisfactory scheme cannot be established, it may perhaps be better to have none. We will take that for granted for the purpose of argument. What I want to put to those who are more directly concerned than I am with regard to the matter—like the hon. Member who opened this Debate, who is himself one of those concerned—is that if the proposals of the Company are turned down on Second Reading without going before a Committee to be thrashed out at all, it may be very much more difficult to negotiate or to get the Company to start a new and more satisfactory scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For a reason which is one of human nature, that if you take up
that position you are likely to make the Company say, "Very well, you would not have it, and the next move is with you." This is a question of policy. My right hon. Friend opposite, I am sure, will listen to me, and if he differs from me he can say so later.
The men are opposing this Bill by petition and are opposing it on preamble. If the Bill goes before a Committee, if they are successful in opposing it on preamble, because it is such a perfectly hopeless Bill that it cannot be made a right one, or in persuading the Company to withdraw it, well and good. If, on the other hand, the Bill can be made satisfactory, there is an opportunity of making it satisfactory in Committee. What I want to put is this: There is that possibility of getting a satisfactory scheme if this Bill goes before a Committee. The House, and those who are interested in the case, and the men concerned, have got this further chance, and I shall for one he most careful to watch it: If, in spite of the opposition on petition by the men themselves, the Bill emerges from Committee in a no more satisfactory state than that in which it is now, the House will be in a position, and to my mind it will be the duty of the House, to throw out the Bill.
That is the position which I take up, with all respect, in the interests of the men principally concerned. It is for that reason that I hope I may persuade some of those more directly interested than myself to adopt that point of view, and to realise that the best course—after expressions of opinion such as I have given, I hope decidedly and strongly—is for the Bill to go before a Committee, and to see what can be made of it there, and for this House to reserve its rights and to turn down the Bill at a later stage if it does not emerge from the Committee in a satisfactory state. I have tried to put my ease very shortly. In conclusion, I want to say a word or two about what I conceive to be the position of what I might call the ordinary Member of Parliament with regard to the Second Reading of Private Bills generally. One of the essential characteristics of our Private Bill procedure, is that, whereas those Private Bills are calculated to affect private individuals or corporations, or groups of individuals or corporations, all those who are
affected by them should have the right of being heard before a quasi-judicial body, namely, the Private Bill Committees. Before that Committee the rights of the case are heard under far more favourable circumstances than anything of the kind can ever be heard in this House. They are heard under conditions equivalent to those of a Court of Justice, where the parties are represented by trained advocates who put forward their case, and it is there that the rights of the parties should be threshed out.
That being so, it seems to me that it is not the business of this House to refuse to send a Private Bill to a Committee unless for specially good reasons. Two of those reasons—there may be others—come to my mind at this moment. One of them is, if the Bill should be in its nature one which would be regarded as contrary to the public interest generally. The establishment of a superannuation fund is not contrary to the public interest. There is another ground on which the House would be justified in refusing a Second Reading, and that is if such a Bill was likely injuriously to affect any person or body of persons or corporations who could not be properly heard and properly represented before the Committee. That is the case in regard to the old super-annuitants under this Bill. But, in their interests, those who are specially trying to put forward their case do not desire to throw out this Bill, but merely desire to ask the Committee to consider their case.
With regard to the other men, those who are directly concerned, I have ventured to suggest that if this Bill goes to Committee, there is a chance that they may be able so to prove their case as to make it a Bill satisfactory to them, or, if they cannot do that, they will be able to get the Bill defeated on Preamble. In these circumstances, I suggest to any of those Members who may be inclined to follow my course, that the best course, in the interests of the men themselves, is to give a Second Reading to this Bill, after protests on the Floor of the House against the very serious defects in it, and with a definite warning—if I may do so without offence—to those who are in charge of the Bills of the companies, that those of us who adopt that particular course will watch the progress of this Bill through Committee with very
great interest, and that unless it emerges in a very different form from that in which it is now, we shall do our best to defeat it when it comes before the House at a later stage.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Whatever may be the result of this Debate, I think the House will agree with me in congratulating the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) upon the speech with which he introduced his Amendment. I think it was a very earnest and remarkably able speech, and I congratulate the House, and particularly the party to which the hon. Member has the honour to belong, upon what has been a most valuable contribution to this Debate. I fear I must ask for the patience of the House, but I will try not to strain it unduly while I lay before hon. Members the position of the London and North Eastern Railway Company in connection with this Bill. It is necessary to go a little way into the history of the company in order to appreciate their responsibility towards the various superannuation funds which have resulted from the amalgamation.
When the amalgamation took place a number of these superannuation funds were in existence. The funds were all worked on the same principle, namely, the principle of a contribution by the worker, and a commensurate contribution by the company. In every case the company also guaranteed the solvency of the fund. The company made an additional contribution to the funds of the superannuation society to preserve the solvency of the fund. In the case of the Great Northern and North British a subsidy was added. The North Eastern gave an enhanced rate of interest—that is, a rate of interest beyond the market rate—so as to ensure the solvency of the fund, and the Great Eastern paid the difference between the income of the fund and its outgoings. The contributions were nearly all based on the period of service, and in each case the company had made itself responsible for the solvency of the fund.
Then came 1919. In that year salary and bonus were amalgamated, and the result of this sudden accretion—the amalgamation of bonus and salary and the increase of salary as well—was to upset the actuarial calculations relating to the superannuation funds. To give an
example of what happened, I take the case of a man in the Great Northern Railway who had joined the fund in 19014 and who retired with 30 years' service on 31st July, 1919. His salary then would have been £120. The pension, which had accumulated for him in the fund, was £50, but he was entitled to £60—half his salary—and, consequently, the company would have had to find £10. On 1st August, 1919, that man's salary was increased to £240. On that basis his retiring pension would be £120, and the fund had accumulated for him only £50, so that the company instead of having to find £10 would have to find £70. That is only one example. In the case of one fund a surplus of £38,000 was converted into a deficiency of £130,000. It would not be fair to say that the whole burden fell upon the companies, because the contributions of the members were increased to some extent, but a very heavy burden had already fallen on the shoulders of the companies, the amount which they had to pay in 1913 being, I think, about £127,000 a year.
9.0 P.M.
I pass by the Resolution of 1920 and come to 1921. The House will remember the Railways Act, 1921, and the discussions which then took place. The real anxiety expressed at that time by members of various funds was that the new development would affect rights and continuity of management in connection with the existing funds, and, consequently, legislation was passed to put that right. The Railways Act of 1921 preserves the continuity of management in the funds. Section 3, Sub-section (1e) of the Act under which the companies were amalgamated, preserves the rights of all members of the existing funds, and the discussions at that time turned entirely upon the question of preserving the rights of the annuitants. I find on looking back to the discussions which took place, a phrase which will I am sure appeal to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. William Graham) because it comes from a person whom he must hold in high esteem and whom the House holds in high esteem. In the OFFICIAL REPORT I find that Mr. Graham said this:
All we are asking in this Clause, and in this matter we have the support, I think of representatives of many of the railway companies, is that provision should be inserted which makes it perfectly certain that, whatever happens, these funds, and,
above all, the system of management of those funds, will be continued unimpaired until the question can be treated as whole, or until some other situation arises in which we shall be able to deal adequately with railway superannuation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1921; cols. 495–496, Vol. 145.]
On another occasion he said—
All we want is to make it absolutely certain that every man after amalgamation has the same right as he has now, and, secondly, that the management of the fund will not be altered.
That was the basis of the discussion at that time. I pass from 1921 and go to 1923, when the amalgamation took place. On the amalgamation of the various companies in the form in which they exist now, two questions arose: first, how to deal with these various superannuation funds, and secondly, how to deal with the new employés who were coming into the employment of the companies, and who were not included in any existing fund. The question was whether they should be allowed to join these funds, and if so, on what terms. It became obvious that it would be practically impossible to allow new entrants—with whom this Bill alone deals—to join existing funds. Accordingly, by arrangement with the Railway Clerks Association, so ably represented by the proposer and seconder of this Amendment, the existing funds were closed to the new entrants. No new man was allowed to join the existing funds, and that was provided for in Section 50 of the London and North Eastern Railway Act. Then came 1924.
In 1924, the London and North Eastern Railway Company introduced a Bill, in which they sought powers to establish a new fund for those not entitled to superannuation, and for powers to propose and devise a scheme which should enable the members of existing organisations to be absorbed into this new scheme which was to be provided for them—practically what the hon. Members opposite are asking for now. What happened? When this Bill was before the House, the Railway Clerks' Association presented a petition against it. The London Midland and Scottish Railway Scheme, called, in railway parlance, the Euston Scheme, was made public at the same time, and the Railway Clerks' Association opposed the suggestion of the London and North Eastern Railway that they should formulate such a scheme,
presented a petition, and the petition was only withdrawn upon the undertaking of the railway company that they would not proceed with any scheme at that time.
The next thing that happened was an investigation of the London, Midland and Scottish scheme. It was a very favourable one. It was on very generous lines, and very attractive to all members of the superannuation fund, and, consequently, it was closely investigated by the railway company and by the Railway Clerks' Association. They examined it together, actuarial advice was sought, and an actuary, I believe, was appointed on behalf of the railway company and also on behalf of the Railway Clerks' Association. The actuaries agreed—and I am afraid this is the sordid crux of the whole matter—that it would involve an additional cost, if it were adopted by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, of £120,000 a year in perpetuity. The question that arose was this: Was this railway company at that time entitled to adopt a scheme which would involve an additional expenditure on the railway company of £120,000 a year. As a result of the alteration in salaries in 1919, and various other things that had happened, let me point out what the financial position of this company was in 1924.
The existing liability to the schemes which they had chosen was of a capital value of £11,000,000. Unless the staff on those funds would increase their contributions, which, I am bound to say, was in those times unthinkable, and the solvency of the funds could be assured, there was no doubt that this company must add, in respect to the liability to these insurance funds, a further burden of £120,000 a year. And at what time did the question arise? In 1924. In that year the London and North Eastern Railway Company took from reserve £2,750,000 in order to maintain the dividend. In 1925, they have had to take in order to maintain the dividend, a sum of £4,000,000 from reserve, and even then they have not been able to pay more than 1 per cent. on the deferred stock, instead of 2½ per cent. They have carried forward in the balance sheet of the year £147,000 less than last year. The Pensions Act, which a fatherly and protective Government have passed, has increased the liability of the company by £135,000 a year, and, owing to
the various increases in salaries of the men, of which I have already spoken, the expenditure in support of these various funds, to keep them solvent, by the company, which, as I told the House, was in 1913 £127,000, has now risen to £330,000 a year.
I know this House, in its fairness, will try to put itself in the position of the board of this company, and consider what was their duty to all those whom they represent, because they not only owe a debt to their staff, but they owe a debt to their shareholders. It is an easy thing to say that the shareholders of a large company of this sort are among the idle rich, and that they can, and ought to be made to contribute more largely towards the necessities of the poor. Let us consider that. With regard to the shareholders of this company, there are 253,000 separate accounts, of which 171,000 are investments under £1,000, and, of the remainder, many of the larger investments represent the thrift and industrial associations of the country, and, therefore, are really contributed by the poor.
What is the position of these shareholders? Supposing a man had invested £100 in a share of the company, instead of paying into his Superannuation Fund. A holder of £100 North Eastern consols received, by way of dividend, in 1913, £7. In the year 1925, the same person is receiving £6 18s. A holder of Great Northern deferred ordinary stock in 1913 received £3, and now £2 8s. Many of these are persons of small means. It is quite true that the cost of living has gone up by about 75 per cent. That is a factor which is the very legitimate basis of the complaint of those men who are receiving the pensions to which they subscribed, and are now receiving them on the pre-War basis, but think of the position of the shareholders. Their income has gone down; it does not even remain stationary. Their interest has gone down, the capital value of their security has, of course, decreased, and there is no provision for them to meet the increased cost of living.
Under these circumstances, what is the company to do? Let me summarise in one sentence the position, as it was when it was considered, as to whether they could extend the scheme to their employés or not. They are paying re-
spectively £130,000 a year to the superannuation fund, and added to their liabilities £135,000 a year; then it is suggested that they are to shoulder a further amount of £120,000! I have received scores of letters and many telegrams, and I think I shall be safe in saying that the real crux of the objection to this Bill can be stated in one sentence—the objectors want this company to adopt the London, Midland and Scottish scheme. The members of the existing superannuation scheme want it—I do not wonder—because it gives them more. It does not give them very much more in the course of time, but it gives them a lower subscription, 2½ per cent. of their salary instead of 3 per cent.
The answer is a very simple one. What is asked for can not be done. It is not the duty of this company to do anything of the kind. This Bill is only introduced because the new entrants have to be provided for, and let me point out that if the House rejects this Bill, no member of any superannuation fund is going to get 6d. extra; no one will get another shilling. The only result will be that superannuation funds will remain as they are, everybody's pension will remain as it is, and a very considerable number of new entrants will be left stranded with no scheme at all. Let me in conclusion say just another word. I have every sympathy with the unfortunate men who have rendered service and who, having paid for a pension which they expected to be sufficient for their needs, now find that it is not. But it is a universal grievance. It touches not only men in the railway funds, it touches the police force, and it touches every class of person who purchased before the War an annuity which is now obviously inadequate. I always have the most hearty sympathy, perhaps, with the case of the women who had saved sufficient to buy a small annuity which, before the War, was barely sufficient to maintain her and which is now quite inadequate. Does anybody suggest that the insurance company ought to pay more because times are bad? If these railway annuitants had subscribed to insurance companies, instead of paying into these funds, they would have had to pay more, a great deal more in premiums, because the company pays an equivalent to their subscriptions, and they would have
been no better off. I think it was Sydney Smith, who once said that a charitable appeal made to him had moved him so deeply that he had advised his friends to subscribe. Let me say that the railway company takes a little more practical view of the situation. The men themselves, with that wonderful sympathy and generosity which always distinguishes men of that class, have themselves subscribed a fund of £10,000 a year which goes to meet the deficiency and to help these weekly pensions which are obviously inadequate. The company have added to that the sum of £23,000. Hon. Members may say that that is not much. The answer to that is that it is something.
Do not let it be supposed that the directors of these companies are not anxious to have a scheme which will give their men all possible advantages. No sane directorate in the world would desire to take away a scheme of this sort if they could help it. What is going to happen? A petition has been presented which raises all the points covered by the speeches which have been made—a petition which really can be dealt with better in Committee upstairs if this Bill gets its Second Reading. At that time all questions of figures and accounts, and the pros and cons, can be gone into with greater detail. I would say to the House that that would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the question. If you are going to destroy the Bill now, to say that this Bill is going to get no further, and the Committee stage goes, the sole result will be that the new entrants remain without any scheme, and with nothing to look forward to in the future. The amalgamated men, whose interests are not touched by this Bill, have taken advantage of the Bill to get something more for themselves—for that is what it comes to, and I do not blame them—by opposing the Bill; but if this Bill is thrown out, nobody is 6d. the better or 6d. the richer than they were before.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Is it the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if a Second Reading be given to this Bill and the petition is referred to Committee, it will be competent for the Committee to enlarge the Bill so as to cover the old members as well as the new entrants?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not say that. The Committee can make
recommendations, but there is no advantage gained by throwing out these Bills.

Sir J. SIMON: I was only asking for information, as I do not know much about it.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I rather gathered that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not be offensive.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his champion. I am sorry anything personal should have been introduced, and if anybody can suggest anything disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman in what I said, I will withdraw it at once. He is an old friend of mine and he is the last person to whom I should wish to be disrespectful. In conclusion, I do beg the House to consider deeply before they take the extreme step of throwing out this Bill. I suggest that every Member would be just if he would put this question to himself, "Supposing I were one of the directors or managers of this; company, should I have done otherwise? Realising the trust for the shareholders and all that is involved, should I have done otherwise than this company has done?" We are not shutting the door for all time. When trade improves for the heavy lines, like the London and North Eastern, let us all hope that the superannuation funds can be improved so as to give the men as much as they get under the London, Midland and Scottish scheme. I give no pledge. I am saying that we are not closing the door for ever. If we can, and when we-can, we will. At the present time we cannot, and we deeply regret that it is-wholly out of the question. I hope that the House of Commons will give this Bill a Second Reading. I am very sorry I have taken up so much time of the Houser and I am very much obliged for the deep attention given to the case I have had to make.

Major HILLS: The hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the details of the able speech he has just made. I want' to bring the discussion back to what has occurred since the Debates on the Railways Act of 1921. Every Member of this House will remember how we sat through that hot summer for four, five or six weeks slowly thrashing out the numerous
and complicated Clauses and Schedules of that Bill. I find that on the 20th day of the discussion, 14th July, 1921, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) moved a Clause dealing with the superannuation funds of the then existing railway companies. I should mention that the Bill, as introduced, did not deal with these points at all. The right hon. Gentleman's new Clause stabilised and kept alive the rights of all subscribers and all annuitants and kept alive the machinery and management of these funds. That Clause did not pass through Committee—I see I voted against it myself—but between the Committee stage and the Report stage of that Bill the right hon. Gentleman and I conferred together and he brought me a Clause which met the objections that I had seen to the original Clause.
We had many discussions on this Clause and, if I remember rightly, at least one of those discussions took place in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who was then Mr. Neal, and we agreed a Clause. That Clause was moved by the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage of the Bill and, though it was not accepted by the Minister of Transport, who was then Sir Erie Geddes, a similar Clause was inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords. I quite agree that that Clause does not impose any obligation on the amalgamated companies to set up a unified fund. I agree that there was no Parliamentary contract which bound the companies to start a unified fund for all the members of the grouped companies. All it said was that no men should be worse off through grouping. Therefore, supposing a unified fund were started, the effect of that must have been that men were graded up and were not graded down. That is as far as the Parliamentary position went, but I should not be fair to the House if I left the matter there. I feel that I am bound to tell the House my own impression of what the understanding was on this important question.
Let me quite shortly sketch the position. All the world knew the railways were going to be grouped; all the world knew that these groups were composed of various companies with very different scales of contribution and very different
scales of benefit; all the world knew that the men who formed part of the new groups would all receive the same salaries. I had in my mind—and I am perfectly clear—an understanding quite clearly that when the groups were amalgamated all the superannuation funds would be unified inside the group. I can only speak for myself, but I remember well in conferences that I held with the right hon. Gentleman it was not so much that we talked about or expressed the certainty that there would be a unified fund for each group as that it was the undercurrent and the basis of our conversation. I assumed that that was an agreed fact. Now, when I come to that point, and when I realise that no unification can take place unless you grade the men up, and that in the case of this particular Bill you cannot have a unified fund unless you put all the members of the superannuation fund on the terms of the best fund, and when I recollect that in my mind there was a very strong understanding that we were to have this unified fund, how do I vote when I see this Bill before me?
The Bill does not do what I understood was to be done. First of all, it leaves all the separate classes, all the salaried officers of the different companies on their old and varied rates of contribution and scales of benefit, and secondly it makes a special scale for new entrants. Now I heard the argument of my hon. Friend for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert). He made a speech, the second part of which I thought contradicted the first, because in the first part he spoke very strongly against the Bill as a most discreditable Bill and, in the second part of his speech, he urged the House to implement the Bill. I do not like voting against a Private Bill on Second Reading. It is a thing I have very rarely done in the many years I used to be in this House.
I feel I cannot either vote for the Bill or abstain from voting. I feel the Bill is one that does not carry out what I thought was the understanding, and what I believe to be the only business basis upon which one can run this group of railways. Surely, it is an impossible position to have men working alongside each other who receive totally different scales of benefit? I do not say anything about the question of whether the scale
of the London and North Eastern Group ought to be raised to the standard of the London Midland and Scottish Group; and I would like to mention that in the many letters I have received opposing this Bill, I have not found that point raised. The only point that has been raised is that the new entrants are being asked to pay increased contributions. I do not see how we can make this Bill a satisfactory Bill. It is perfectly certain that it cannot deal with the case of the pre-War annuitants—that is so clearly outside the scope of it that no instruction could bring it in. This Bill, also, could never deal with the varying classes under the funds of the old companies. It deals entirely with the new entrants, and places them upon a different scale, and, that being so, I think it my duty to vote against this Bill.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: Although the Eleven o'clock Rule has been suspended for this purpose to-night, I think hon. Members will feel that our time is limited, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I deal only very briefly indeed with the case before us. I am driven to speak because, along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I was in the 1921 Parliament a party to certain negotiations which took place during the prolonged proceedings on the Railways Act upstairs, on the Report stage later, and on the final stages. I venture to ask the attention of Members for a minute or two while I try to confirm the summary which my hon. and gallant Friend has just presented to the House. During the nine weeks of that very hot summer that we discussed this Bill upstairs there was, perhaps, no part of the Measure of greater importance, certainly to the salaried staffs of the railway companies, than that part which referred to the position of their superannuation funds. I believe that at that time a figure of anything from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 in the aggregate was regarded as the sum we then had under discussion.
The Railways Act, 1921, proposed to wipe out the railway companies of this country and to combine them in four great amalgamations on a geographical basis. It was plain to everyone that that would involve in due course a great change in the position of the superannuation funds, and in our endeavours to safe-
guard the interests of the salaried staffs we were very anxious at that time—during the Committee stage—to secure the insertion of such a Clause as would provide for the amalgamation of the existing superannuation funds, or would at all events take a definite step towards that end. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport of that day argued that that could only be done after considerable actuarial investigation. There was a good deal of doubt as to the position of the old funds, which had been in existence for many years, there was some doubt as to the position that new entrants to those funds would occupy, and in the long run the Government decided they were unable to embark upon a Clause of that kind. Accordingly we were driven to try to safeguard the position of the people who were in the then funds by getting into the Railways Act such general Clauses as would retain those funds in their management, and all the rest, until a consideration or reconsideration of the whole scheme was possible.
If hon. Members turn to the Railways Act, 1921, they will find a Clause in it upon those lines. The common understanding at that date was that they would proceed almost immediately to this kind of amalgamation. May I recall to the House the ideas which were in the minds of the members of the Government on that day—the Coalition Government—of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and of their expert advisers? It was said by one of the leading advisers that the most desirable scheme was one united scheme that would cover the salaried and for all I know, all other staffs of the railway amalgamations. Under that there would be a very wide basis. But at all events nobody believed for a single moment that there would be other than one comprehensive scheme for each amalgamation, at the lowest. That was the view entertained by members of the Committee, by the expert advisers, and, I think, by all people interested in the Measure at that date.
The negotiations since that time, while they have been protracted, and even complex, can be very simply described. The London Midland and Scottish amalgamation—entirely to its credit—proceeded to a discussion with the Railway
Clerks' Association and to the framing of a scheme in terms of the understanding we all had in our minds in 1921. That scheme provided for the fusion of the old funds, and for the inclusion within the one scheme of the new entrants—a comprehensive proposal, which included all grades of the staff. As has been pointed out, that was entirely satisfactory to all concerned. On the other hand, there have been prolonged negotiations with the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and also, I think, some minor discussion with the Southern Company, but in the result it has been impossible, unfortunately, to reach agreement. I want to make it perfectly plain that all along the members of the Railway Clerks' Association, and the other people interested from the staff side, have done everything in their power to reach an agreement. They have legitimately taken the view that what was done in the case of the London Midland and Scottish Company was nothing more than what was the understanding in 1921, and that that should be applied in this case.
Let us be perfectly clear in our minds as to what it exactly is that is before the House. So far from introducing one united comprehensive scheme of that character, the proposal of the London and North Eastern Group is that the old funds, admittedly difficult and unsatisfactory, should be left in their present position, and that from the 1st January, 1923, there should be a new fund, for new entrants coming in after that date, with different scales of contribution. They set up within the one railway group the old funds, and this new, separate and distinct fund confined to the new entrants. I think I have only got to state that case from the principle of mere superannuation to show how thoroughly unsound the whole proposal is, and to prove how manifestly contrary it is to what was intended in 1921.
Let me take one or two points which have been raised in this Debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman who put the case for the Second Reading of this Bill built it very largely upon the difficulties which in the main have overtaken the London and Northern Eastern amalgamation. We on this side of the House are fully aware of the industrial difficulties, and we know that they have been hit to
a very considerable extent, but when the hon. Member goes out of his way and places part of these difficulties on the ground of the extra liabilities incurred in regard to widows' and orphans' pensions, then I think he is referring more to legislation which applies to things at large and equally to the case of the London, Midland and Scottish as well as to the North Eastern Company. To the best of my knowledge what is now put forward has never been claimed by any promoters of superannuation at all. The superannuation which has been referred to is on a contributory basis, and applies to 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 of our people, and therefore that is not an argument which can be imported into this Debate.
There is one other consideration which I am sure this House will not ignore. The railway amalgamations in this country are in a peculiar position. It is perfectly true that the burden of industrial distress is falling upon them, and this House should do what it can to meet the difficulty. It should not be forgotten, however, that after the War, during the period of early reconstruction, £51,000,000 net was paid to them. The fact that this was paid to them has enabled them to take certain sums from reserves to meet years of admitted difficulty during industrial depression. The same Act of Parliament gave a direction to fix the rates and charges in order to give those amalgamations as near as may be the net revenue of 1913, and I think that fact ought to be kept in mind when considering the elementary justice to be done to the staffs of the two large and important groups which are under discussion to-night.
We have been asked why we are opposing the Second Reading of this Bill and why we are not willing to allow it to go upstairs for discussion where all the details could be hammered out. Hon. Members who may be in favour of the Second Reading know quite well that in Committee upstairs you cannot go beyond the scope of the scheme, and that is the final reply to that argument. You can really only discuss these things between the railway amalgamations and the representatives of the staffs; you must discuss these matters with the people who are intimately concerned, not necessarily before a Committee of this House, but before the people who know all the details.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Is it not the case that this question could be raised on the Preamble in Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I cannot agree, because this is a matter for discussion with the people immediately concerned, and it is because you cannot bring this Bill into line at all with the proposals of the Midland and Scottish Company, in carrying out the understanding of 1921, that we invite the House to reject the Second Reading of this Measure. The House knows perfectly well that there must be superannuation for staffs in this position, and at the present time contributions are being deducted from their salaries for this purpose. Accordingly at a very early date there must be a reconsideration of the whole matter. I trust I have now said sufficient in regard to the understanding of 1921 to lead this House to reject the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir J. SIMON: The responsibility of every hon. Member of this House when a great corporation like a railway company asks for the Second Reading of a Bill is of course very grave, and I think the crowded state of the House at the present moment shows that we all desire to take that responsibility seriously. Speaking for myself I am much obliged to hon. and learned Members opposite for the clear exposition which has been given of this Bill, and I thoroughly sympathise with the claim that one must not put burdens upon railway companies like this on the ground that, after all, it is only the rich shareholders who are going to suffer. My own view is that I think there are quite as many people interested in dividends as there are employés, and therefore the argument about the rich shareholders is a false one. I think hon. Members opposite may be quite right in asking the House to pause before deciding to reject this Bill on its Second Reading.
Although I do not know so much about these matters as the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I have always taken a deep interest in the question of superannuation, and I know a good deal about it, and if it is thought that this is the proper solution, then I think the result is deplorable. It certainly is deplorable to find that some people in the
same office or town and people who may be moved about should find themselves working side by side with somebody else doing the same work on quite a different scale of remuneration. You might as well have Members of Parliament receiving different salaries, although they were sitting side by side in this House. After listening to the arguments my own impression has been very much confirmed that really this sort of solution was not what was meant when the Railways Act was passed. I had that impression, and I am now quite satisfied that it was right, in view of what I have heard. Let me, with great respect, say that, if it be the case that this railway company was seriously considering whether it could amalgamate these funds, and then came to the conclusion that it could not do so because of the burden of widows' and orphans' pensions, that is no argument at all. I could not help noting that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a figure representing the cost of the burden thrown upon this railway company by that Act—

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: All that I did was to state that sum when I was enumerating the liability which the company now has to discharge.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether there is any relation between the two things or not. I can understand that you may have the last straw, which seems to be almost breaking the camel's back, but I do suggest to the House that it is necessary to take a bold stand, and that burdens of that kind—which are, no doubt, grievous for many large employers of labour—cannot be made the reason why the proper solution is not pursued, and cannot be any justification for a Bill which is otherwise so deplorably unsatisfactory. I interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman because it seemed to me that, in urging upon the House of Commons that, if it passed the Second Reading of this Bill, the petition would then come before a Committee, he was in fact suggesting or implying that improvements could then be made which would meet our present difficulty. I am not very familiar with Private Bill procedure, but I was surprised at that, and I gather it is agreed on all hands that nothing of the sort can be done. Therefore, speaking for myself, although I do
so very reluctantly, because I think it is a most serious thing to throw out on Second Reading the proposals of a great corporation which is serving the public as faithfully as it can, I must take the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Hills) said he felt obliged to take, because this Bill really would not produce a solution of the question. On the whole, it would rather delay than hasten a solution, and it is necessary, I think, for those concerned in this matter to make another effort to arrive at a reasonable arrangement which will satisfy both sides.

Mr. REMER: I want to say a word on behalf of the superannuitants—the old men men whose case for some seven or eight years I and my hon. Friend the Member for St Pancras have been putting forward in this House. I want to join issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) on this matter. I have in my hand the figures of the various companies of the London and North Eastern Company. It is quite true that the North-Eastern section of that company has given supplements in a scheme which it has put forward, but I have here the figures relating to the Great Northern Company. In the case of one man, who was receiving a salary of £116 a year on retirement, he receives a regular pension of £48 11s., and receives no supplement whatever. Another man, whose salary on retirement was £109 per annum, is receiving a regular pension of £94 13s., and also receives no supplement. A third man, who was receiving a salary on retirement of £108, receives a pension of only £35 19s. I put these cases forward to show that the statement that these old people have received supplements is not quite accurate.
10.0 P.M.
Before I sit down I want to place before the House the views of the association which has been pleading this case for a very long time. After a very hard fight, they managed to get their way with the London, Midland and Scottish Company. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) has mentioned how we received many telegrams and letters on that occasion. I received 300,000. These old men are still trying to put their case forward, but I am satisfied, having heard
the Debate this evening, that it is impossible, owing to the framework of this Bill, for any alteration to be made in it which would deal with their case. The London and North Eastern Company and the Southern Railway Company have so drafted their Bills that I think it will be found impossible, even with the instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), to put forward any Amendment which will meet their case. The sum of money involved is not very large. A suggestion has been made that grants of supplementary pensions should be made by a committee on a graduated scale, that no pension shall be less than £100, that no existing pension over £150 shall receive more than £5o as a supplement, that pensions between £150 and £350 shall be dealt with by the Board direct, and that no claim shall be made in respect of any pension over £350. These suggestions seem to me to be so reasonable that they might well be adopted. I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Bill.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is a long time since such a full House listened with the interest that has been shown to-night to a Debate on a Private Bill. I do not associate myself, and never have associated myself, with the policy of merely opposing a railway Bill because it happened to be brought forward by a railway company. On the contrary, even when it involved disagreement with my friends on this side, I have always endeavoured to consider the question on its merits. I am approaching this Bill in precisely the same way, and, if I were in a position to advise the railway companies, in their own best interests, and equally keeping in mind that there must of necessity be further negotiations whatever happens—let the House please keep that in mind—instead of seeing both these Bills defeated, which appears to me to be inevitable, I would like to see them withdrawn.
I will give my reasons for that. Do not let any hon. Member vote for the Second Reading on what is called the principle of this Bill with the idea that the real basis of the grievance can be amended in Committee. I do not know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), but he went so far as to say that he was totally opposed to this Bill, but that,
because all his grievances could be remedied in Committee—and he would watch them carefully during the proceedings there, and then throw it out on Third Reading—he asked that a Second Reading should be given to the Bill. If he was speaking in ignorance of what can take place, he must of necessity alter his mind and vote against the Bill now.
On the other hand I think my hon. and learned Friend went too far in stating the railway company's view by merely saying that if you reject this Bill that ends it. That will not do; it may go away with some, but it cannot possibly come off with me. No one speaking for the railway companies and knowing the facts would desire to convey that impression. It must be admitted, first, that a superannuation scheme is essential. It must be admitted, secondly, that if the companies claim and exercise, and rightly exercise, the right to transfer Great Northern men to the North Eastern, and Great Eastern men to the North Eastern offices, and so on, it is an absurd and impossible position to have a superannuation scheme on one basis for one and another basis for the other. It is impossible, and the railway companies know that as well as we do.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind me interrupting him for one moment? My point was that so far as this Bill could not deal with the existing superannuation fund the point could be raised on the Preamble, and if it could not be dealt with on this Bill it was open to be dealt with on the representations that could then be made that the existing superannuation funds. The question of new entrants is an entirely different matter. My point was that it would be unfortunate if what we call the new entrants were thrown out without discussion.

Mr. THOMAS: I quite understand the point, but now that the hon. Member has heard the explanation dealing with the point he so strongly emphasised, and which he now realises is impossible, I think it would be better to take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend who spoke for the railway companies, and save them that unnecessary cost. I am thinking of their money at the moment. Then I come to the next point, and it is this. Everyone who took part in that
great Railways Bill will pay tribute to the remarkable fairness, interest, and skill displayed by the present hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who throughout the whole of those negotiations—except on one occasion when Lord Banbury interrupted him—spoke for and represented the railway companies' interests. He not only represented them well, but fairly, and I say that from the other side. You have heard him to-night tell the House frankly that, although there were not only on this, but on many other occasions, attempts made to insert Clauses in the Railways Bill for tactical and other reasons, discussions took place and there was an implied understanding—sometimes they were withdrawn and sometimes negatived—but I have never known that bargain to be broken.
Whenever I have been able to say to the railway companies that there was an understanding, it has been loyally kept. You have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon to-night what actually took place. He knew that standardisation in conditions was accepted by the railway companies and the Government. He also knew that if amalgamations were to follow with groups of men whose conditions were standardised, superannuation, if it was to be standardised, must be on the highest level and not the lowest. Common sense and experience told him that that was to be the position. That is all we ask. We do not ask the House to reject this Bill merely for the sake of rejection. I am asking the promoters to withdraw both Bills, and let the practical people come together again, and the practical people are not a Committee of this House.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman one moment? The petition, which is the petition to be considered if this Bill goes upstairs to Committee, is the petition of the Railway Clerks' Association, and it contains nine-tenths of the arguments which have been addressed to the House this evening, including a great number of those now being presented by the right hon. Gentleman. These matters would be cogent for the consideration of the Committee.

Mr. THOMAS: In negotiations where the contributions and the management
are shared and where goodwill is essential, I merely ask the House to remember this. Is it not better for the companies and their own men, who are the only people affected, to sit down round the table like the London, Midland and Scottish and the Great Western did, and hammer it out for themselves? It is no good saying the petition says this and that. The fact remains that you get the six best brains in this House, and they would not be equal to the six humblest porters on the railway to-day. For all these reasons I regret that I have to oppose this Bill if the Amendment goes to a Division, but in the beet interests of the companies and the men, and of goodwill and of an industry which is doing better for itself than outsiders can do for it, I again urge the promoters not to risk the inevitable fate that I am quite sure will overtake it.

Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: It is difficult to follow the distinguished orators who have been speaking on the Bill, but as a mere director of one of the companies involved, the London and North Eastern, I should like to say a word or two, more especially with regard to the last speech and to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given various reasons in urging the withdrawal of the Bill, and in doing so he referred to what took place upstairs during the passing of the Railways Act. I was on that Committee, and to a large extent I agree absolutely with what he said, but there is this small difference. I, like I think all Members of the Committee, wished to see a scheme of amalgamation which would cover all the funds, and I think the way in which negotiations have progressed since that date, as between the Railway Clerks' Association and the London and North Eastern Railway Company, shows that that company also wished to get complete amalgamation.
I think it is within the knowledge of the House, at any rate, of all those who have read the great amount of literature that has been flying around in regard to this Bill, that negotiations on the lines of having complete amalgamation continued for some years, but although it has shown that the railway companies wished to have that complete amalgamation of funds, what, in fact,
prevented it was the case so ably put by my hon. and learned Friend beside me (Sir E. Hume-Williams) and the total incapacity of the railway companies to raise the necessary money to take on the liabilities that will be created by the creation of those funds. There is no desire on the part of the railway companies to avoid an amalgamation of the funds. What we desire to avoid is having it forced upon us at the present juncture when funds are extraordinarily difficult to find, and we think this is the wrong moment, owing to that fact, for such an amalgamation to take place.
If the House sees its way to give the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope it wilt, there is nothing in it which will prevent the Railway Clerks' Association raising the whole question of amalgamation of funds on a future occasion, which we hope will arrive soon. My hon. and learned Friend says it is possible to raise this in Committee but I should not like to suggest that even if it were raised in Committee at present the railway companies could accept it. I do not think they could.
It has been suggested that a very bad precedent will be formed inasmuch as under this Bill we are starting a new class of men who will be working under different conditions from men working alongside of them. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. What, in fact, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon suggested was that the Bill should be thrown out because of this anomaly that we were creating. If the Bill is thrown out he creates a still greater anomaly inasmuch as he is proposing, not that there should be men who are on a different footing in regard to superannuation, but that we are to create a class who have no superannuation fund at all. Surely his cure is going to create an even greater evil. In these circumstances his suggestion absolutely falls to the ground.
I cannot help thinking the House is rather getting misled in regard to the whole matter. We have had the question put to us, and we have had a great discussion in regard to this amalgamation of funds. There is nothing at all to prevent the whole question of amalgamation being brought up again by the Railway Clerks' Association and fully discussed. I agree that the effect of passing this Bill will be to create another
class who will have to be considered. We have seven now. It does not make much difference whether you have eight, but the fact that we ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill does not to my mind make any greater difficulties in regard to discussing the whole question of the amalgamation of funds at some future time. I trust that, owing to this fact, and owing to the obvious fact that the railway company cannot at the moment face the expense and the liability

of amalgamation, the House will consider that these new entrants are entitled to a superannuation scheme and will recognise the fact that no one on the opposite benches has said the new entrants themselves do not want a superannuation scheme, and under the circumstances will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 341.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Murrough Wilson and Sir Ellis Hume-Williams.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm



Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



Fleiden, E. B.
Sandeman, A. Stewart



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Connolly, M.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cove, W. G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro-)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Ammon, Charles George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hanbury, C.


Astor, Viscountess
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hardie, George D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harland, A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.


Baker, Walter
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Barnes, A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hawke, John Anthony


Barnston, Major Sir Harpy
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hayday, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry
Hayes, John Henry


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bethel, A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Betterton, Henry B.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Blundell, F. N.
England, Colonel A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hirst, G. H.


Briant, Frank
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Briggs, J. Harold
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Broad, F. A.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Bromfield, William
Fenby, T. D.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bromley, J.
Fermoy, Lord
Homan, C. W. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Forrest, W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burman, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cape, Thomas
Gates, Percy
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cassels, J. D.
Gee, Captain R.
Jacob, A, E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry
Jephcott, A. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Christie, J. A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Clowes, S.
Greenall, T.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cluse, W. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kelly, W. T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Groves, T.
Kennedy, T.


Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Palin, John Henry
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Paling, W.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Kirkwood, D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Lamb, J. Q
Philipson, Mabel
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lawson, John James
Power, Sir John Cecil
Taylor, R. A.


Lee, F.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Preston, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Livingstone, A. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pureed, A. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Looker, Herbert William
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Lowth, T.
Raine, W.
Thurtle, E.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Tinne, J. A.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Tinker, John Joseph


Lumley, L. R.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Townend, A. E.


Lunn, William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Varley, Frank B.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Riley, Ben
Waddington, R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacIntyre, Ian
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mackinder, W.
Ropner, Major L.
Warne, G. H.


McLean, Major A.
Rose, Frank H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macmillan, Captain H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rye, F. G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Salmon, Major I.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Malone, Major P. B.
Sandon, Lord
Welsh, J. C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


March, S.
Scrymgeour, E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Margesson, Captain D.
Sexton, James
Whiteley, W.


Maxton, James
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Wiggins, William Martin


Meller, R. J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Montague, Frederick
Sin on, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sitch, Charles, H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Skelton, A. N.
Windsor, Walter


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Murchison, C. K.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wragg, Herbert


Neville, R. J.
Snell, Harry
Wright, W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Nuttall, Ellis
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles



O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Scurr and Mr. Remer.


Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.



Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir EVELYN CECIL: I am in charge of this Bill, and in view of what has taken place I think the proper course is to ask
the leave of the House to withdraw the Bill. Perhaps I might at the same time express the hope that any negotiations, whenever they ensue, will be conducted in a mutually friendly spirit.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

FOOD SUPPLY.

Mr. GEORGE HIRST: I beg to move,
That, in view of the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission and the experiences of the Food Council, together with recent revelations respecting short weight and short measure in the sale of
food, legislation to protect the consumer is urgent and necessary.
In rising to move this Motion, I wish to say at the outset that I am very sorry that the two Bills which we have just been discussing should have intervened, because it is now impossible for me to make the lengthy statement which might be made on this Motion. A year ago a similar Motion was introduced by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and discussion then took place with reference to the cost of living, and the Commission which had been set up at that time. In that discussion, evidence was produced which pointed very clearly to the fact that something would have to be done in the interests of the workers of this country. But although the Commission has been sitting and a year has gone by since that Motion was introduced, nothing has been done by the Government to reduce the cost of living. I speak more particularly on behalf of the miners of this country in saying that when one considers the reductions in wages which have taken place, one cannot but wonder if the Government ever take into account that it is practically impossible on the wages they are receiving for working people to keep fit and remain at their daily work.
I refer to one of the best wages boards in the country when I refer to the Yorkshire miners, and it will be found that in Yorkshire wages have been reduced to 46.67 per cent. above the 1914 standard, while the cost of living is between 70 and 75 per cent. above the 1914 rate. Deducting one figure from the other one can only come to the conclusion that these miners to-day are working for wages 25 per cent. or 28 per cent. less than they were getting in 1914. I am aware that the Commission was set up in November, 1924, and took evidence from time to time, and one result of their inquiry has been to show the appalling way in which the people of the country have been robbed by short weight and high charges in connection with foodstuffs. We ask the Government to introduce a Bill which will do something for the workers in this respect. I know the Government will tell us, as they did in answer to a question the other day, that it is their intention to introduce a Bill, but we are not satisfied with the mere declaration of their intention. We ask, when are they going to introduce the Bill?
When one reads the evidence as to short weight and so on given in evidence before this Commission, one can readily understand that the country at large should insist on this matter being brought before the House and on something, tangible being done. In reading through the reports we find that, so far as prosecutions are concerned, the Weight and Measures Act does not interfere with people except in so far as coal and one or two other things are concerned. It does not apply to the other essentials. This business has been going on for years, and we have only been able to ascertain through this Royal Commission and the evidence given before it how far the people of this country have been robbed. This applies more particularly to the workers, and it is a thing that ought to be brought to an end by the introduction of a Bill. I do not propose at this late hour to go into the question so far as the Royal Commission is concerned, because I want to give an opportunity to others to take part in the Debate.

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that my hon. Friend has put in a very plain way the facts of which we have to complain. First, I think, we ought to recognise the necessity of protecting the public, inasmuch as we import into this country four-fifths of our wheat, three-fifths of our meat, three-fifths of our eggs, and one-half of our dairy produce. I think these facts ought to prove to 'every Member of this House the necessity of protecting the public from the middleman and the wholesaler who distribute the food to the people. My hon. Friend has pointed out a few of the ways in which the public have been robbed and plundered in the distribution of food.
Though we only produce this small amount of foodstuffs in our own country, there are 1,250,000 people—willing workers—unemployed. We do not get many definite facts, but, from estimates that have been given to us, we learn that in this country there are some 12,000,000 acres of land not cultivated or under-cultivated. It does not appear credible that there should be 12,000,000 acres of land either not cultivated or under-cultivated, while there are 1,250,000 workers out of employment. One would
have thought that in this House, which is supposed to represent the intelligence of this country, something might have been brought forward whereby these idle lands might have been brought to these idle hands.
No man should have the power to stop Parliament from dealing with a matter of this kind. The question, it appears to me, largely deals with the few facts that have been brought out by the Food Council. Always let us remember that the purchasing power—and while we speak about the miners, we can speak also about the population of the country—has been reduced by over £500,000,000 per year in the shape of reductions in wages. That only proves the necessity of safeguarding the people with this reduced purchasing power. Let us also remember that the distribution of food supplies that are imported ought to be a national obligation. Let us see what has been done in this respect. I have not too much time, but I really feel it a hardship, Mr. Speaker. We do not take up the time of this House as a rule, but there is something wrong with Parliamentary procedure that in a case like this, where a private Member, by the luck of the ballot, draws probably the chance of a lifetime, the Chairman of Ways and Means comes and introduces two Bills that the judgment of the House has said were frivolous, and so robs the private Member of his chance.
The increase in the cost of living is roughly 75 per cent. The decreased purchasing power of the working classes in the aggregate is from 20 to 30 per cent. lower than in 1914. I am not dealing particularly with the case of the miners, which some of us know, but with the general decrease over the country. I make another statement in respect to that, and it is, that there is all the more reason why Parliament, as selected by the people of this country, should do something. I have never complained of the other side. I have never got up and belittled hon. Members opposite. They were chosen by the people. They were chosen by the democratic votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"!] Yes, but I think the people were wrong! I hope they will not make the same mistake again. Amongst the evidence that was given to the Food Council one thing that struck me more
than anything I read—I am sure my Scottish friends will rather applaud me for it—was the evidence given by a bailie from Scotland and also an inspector of weights and measures.
I have here the evidence of Mr. Charles Findlater Macdonald, and Mr. Archibald H. Hamilton, a bailie of Scotland, and I culled their evidence for my Scotch friends. I have a very sincere respect for my Scotch friends. They are very persistent, but on some occasions when I miss my train that respect is turned to—. I may say that the other side thinks exactly as I do about the time they keep us here. Those gentlemen say that they took 11,049 samples of sugar, and that 2,129 of those samples were incorrect, and that the percentage of deficiency in weight out of the whole was 15.6 per cent. [Interruption.] I do not want to use swear words, and I do not want helping in that way. I have a very great respect for the hon. Member, but my vocabulary, if I care to use it, is quite sufficient. Out of 1,690 samples of butter they found 234 deficient in weight, or a percentage of 12.1.
I will only trouble the House with one other matter that I hope will appeal to my Scottish friends. There is a long total here of all the foodstuffs and of all the samples they have taken with the percentage of deficiency in weight. One thing, however, struck me more than another about the evidence of these Scottish gentlemen. Why it should be mixed up with evidence given to the Food Council I do not know, but they stated that they took 475 samples of whisky, and that there were 261 deficient and the percentage of the deficiency was 25 per cent.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The hon. Member will remember that I gave an undertaking that Scottish interests should be fully considered.

Mr. GRUNDY: This matter probably appealed to me, but not from a drinker's point of view, at least, our national beverage amongst the miners does not rise to the height of whisky. We cannot go beyond beer. In all the rest of the articles of which they took samples, and I shall not weary the House by going through the whole of the list, there was a deficiency in weight of 14.9 per cent.
In regard to short measure with milk, the general evidence was that it varied
from 5 per cent. to 30 per cent. Milk is the food of the children. I have been interested in them all my life—well, I have nine living—and I have been interested since 1903 as chairman of the Public Health Committee of my own local authority. I have helped in my way. I have been mayor of my own town, too, and I have always claimed to look upon my municipal record as a much better record than the one I have here. I helped to make progress there, but as for progress here—well, it is very slow. Coming to packages, out of 9,663 weighed or measured 1,743 were found to be deficient. I am not going into the profits of the wholesale or retail dealers who stand between the foodstuffs and the consumers. All I have to say is that it is time this matter was dealt with. The public have been robbed and plundered sufficiently long. I ask the Government to deal with this matter as speedily as possible in this Session—that is what the Food Council have asked—and to deal with it in such a drastic way that those people who from little peculations have got to robbing the public shall know the dangers which they run.


            The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton
            Chadwick)
          : I share the general regret that we should have had two such unimportant Bills this evening to curtail one of the most delightful, invigorating and helpful speeches I have listened to in this House for a long time. The Government are very much alive to the necessity of following out the recommendations of the Food Council by legislation. What the two hon. Members have said in regard to urging the Govern-
ment does not fall on deaf ears. Perhaps it would be helpful if they would remember that when they are dealing with other Government matters which are being brought forward. The two hon. Members will recollect that only yesterday my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated that the Government were anxious to undertake legislative action on this subject as soon, as possible. The Food Council's Report was published only on the 20th February, and the hon. Member for the Wentworth Division (Mr. Hirst), who urged more speedy progress in introducing legislation, will understand that this is an intricate matter and a very far-reaching matter, and I am sure he will take it from me that my right hon. Friend in charge of the Measure is not losing any time about it. Hon. Members will be aware that local authorities in the main are in favour of legislation following on the recommendations of the Food Council, and will also be aware that the great mass of the trading associations are also in favour of legislation.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House de now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.